PERSONALISTA ONTOLÓGICAMENTE FUNDADA.

■ William Millican, D.1) ♦, by his v/ife, Annie11 Mary

fine liturgy, had definite views upon apostolic

succession, and was faithful in the observance of the Christian Year. But moat of all Cooper felt that ’’the general practice of the Scottish Church as regards frequency of Communion is to be condemned”.

During the early years of his ministry, while at Broughty S’erry (1873-1881), Cooper bees®© a member of

the Church Service Society, and made valued acquaintance with two of the Society’s loading figures - “the great twin brothers” - Dr, George W, Sprott of North Berwick

•V

and. Dr. 1'homas Leishraan of Linton. In Sprott, Cooper

found, a kindred spirit with whom he was to have close

contact and constant correspond®no© throughout his life on Scottish ecclesiastical and liturgical matters, and from hi® Cooper received continued encouragement to adhere to hie Catholic convict!one.

When the Scottish Church Society came into exis­ tence in 1892 ’’for the defence and promulgation of Catholic truth’" Cooper welcomed the opportunity of

becoming a founder-member. He gave a lifelong loyalty to this Society and its aims and looked on it as one

of the most hopeful agencies for the promotion of

sound (Shusehmanship that hod ever srisefl, in the Ghurch of Scotland. ’’Gooper was in whole-hearted agreement

With every word of the new Society’s basis and

objects end gave binself consistently to its support and defence".^"

But, of course, Cooper’s “high-churchisra” led him into trouble. In setting forth, as he so

constantly did, his Catholic ideal of the Scottish Church and the necessity for order, reverence and beauty in worship, and advocating, in speech, sermon

and newspaper articles, the desirability of a closer fellowship with other branches of the Church., he was

liable to be misunderstood, ffih® parrot-cry go often levelled at the High Church group of his day was

inevitably made against Cooper. He was “aping the Anglicans”• He was a “secret Roman”, a ’’Jesuit”

seeking to subvert the Presbyterian Church by insidious end crafty means. He required to be watched. More than most of the High Churchmen he suffered much abuse at the hands of Jacob Primmer , the John Kensit of

Scotland, especially in 1902 during the notorious

"Bax'nhill Case”, in which his friend and former assia- tant'* was charged by l’rimer in the General Assembly of “setting up the blasphemous sacrifice of the Hass

1, H,J.Wotherspooni op.cit., p.165, 2, The Rev. J, Newbiggin Adamson, ®„A,

173.

in Barnhill Church**. Cooper found himself so

constantly referred ho by Friwaer as an accomplice of the accused aiaisher that he seriously considered prosecuting Friasmer in, the Church courts in order to halt hie campaign of defamation*

During Ms Aberdeen minister too, (in the Bast Church, 1881**! 898), Cooper found a email group of critics in his tok seeaion. $hcir opposition ulti­ mately led in 1882 to a petition to the llreefoybery of.

Aberdeen complaining of the minister* b High Church

methods ~ Ms desire to change the position of the

pulpits Ma reference to the Holy fable as a "Christian altar", hi® use of a litany at Sunday School, the intro­ duction of daily service at which prayer-daek and

reading**desk were need* Moreover the petition pointed out that Cooper had departed from use and wont by

giving private Comnnion to the sick and aged, had

taught the children in Sunday School to respond "like

an

Episcopal congregation". A more serious charge was

that "of magnifying the Sacraments and Ministry, of dilating upon the virginity of the Mother' of our lord, upon the Saint®, the fathers, and festivals; of

1* Brimmers She -Secret Bontanlaiw Scott ish Church

Society Exposed* x?*l*.. £ee also “Barnhill Case*

in Church of Scotland Assembly jPapera 1902,

pp*87-151.

teaching Baptismal ^Regeneration, 'franaubstantiation,

3

Apostolic Succession and ministerial absolution5’ .'* She root of the trouble seems to have been, that Cooper, in hie youthful seal, had not sufficiently

consulted his kirk session in matters about which, they had a right to be consulted. In the ordering

of public worship, as he rightly pointed out, the kirk session has, in Scottish ecclesiastical polity, no

jurisdiction. She minister albne, and subject only to the presbytery, is responsible for the conduct of divine service. But on reading the petition of

complaint presented by a section of the eldership one feels that they were not altogether unjustified in their protest. Cooper undoubtedly had been too pre­

cipitate. Sis peremptory changes in long-established usages, his use of a legitimate but unfamiliar termin­

ology in his pulpit teaching were bound to arouse

suspicion amongst those who had never before encountered High Ohurchmanchip at work. »he matter eventually

ended in a presbytery injunction that Cooper ’’should be

more careful in the discharging of his ministry not to give occasion for the suspicion that his opinions and

practices were not in thorough accordance with the

179.

1