Sir William Cockburn, 11th Baronet
 |
Sir William Cockburn, 11th Baronet[1] (2 June 1773 - 30 April 1858, Kelston) was a Church of England clergyman. He was Dean of York (1823–1858) and was famously defended on a charge of simony by his nephew Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet in 1841.
Biography
Cockburn was the third son of Sir James Cockburn, 8th Baronet and his second wife Augusta Anne Ayscough. His maternal grandfather was Francis Ayscough, Dean of Bristol. In 1853 Cockburn was made Baronet after the death of his brother, George, who was an FRS and Admiral of the Fleet, Major-General of the Marines and Rear-Admiral of the United Kingdom.
In 1805, he married Elizabeth Peel (died 1826), sister of Sir Robert Peel.[2] She gave birth to three sons. Robert, the second son, died in 1825, a year before his mother, Elizabeth, died. George, the third son, died in 1830 and James, the eldest, died in 1846 at the age of 38. In 1830 Cockburn married Margaret Pearce, the daughter of a Colonel Pearce, but they had no children.[3]
Cockburn was educated at Charterhouse School and St John's College, Cambridge, graduating as twelfth wrangler in 1795 and receiving his MA in 1798 and DD in 1823.[4] A fellow of St John's from 1796 to 1806, he was the first Christian Advocate of Cambridge University from 1803 to 1810.[4][5] He was also a vocal scriptural geologist.[6]
George Cockburn was ordained in the Church of England as a deacon in 1800 and as priest the following year. In 1822 he became the Dean of York, the chief place of authority and dignity in the Cathedral and a position he held until his death in 1858.[2][7] From 1832 onwards he was also rector of Kelston, Somerset, near Bristol, where he generally spent half the year.[8]
At age 84, Cockburn died in Kelston on April 30, 1858, after more than a year of growing infirmities.[7]
Accused of simony
In 1829 a fanatical Methodist set fire to the Minster causing considerable damage. As Dean, Cockburn was responsible to manage the repairs, which he did not do well. A second, accidental fire in 1840 again caused massive damage. Conflicts over the restoration work and Cockburn's unwise financial management finally reached a boiling point in 1841, when a York prebendary accused Cockburn of simony. Cockburn was foolishly frank, muddled his accounts, used repair funds for non-repair purposes, was intolerable to clear-thinking accountants and made too many independent decisions. Eventually, litigation involving the Archbishop of York led to a judgment deposing Cockburn from the Deanery. Cockburn appealed to the court of the Queen's Bench, which ruled "almost contemptuously" in favour of Cockburn, being particularly critical of the prosecuting attorney, Dr. Phillimore, Regius Professor of Civil Law at Oxford, for his ignorance of the applicable laws. The reputation of the Minster suffered badly from this affair. However, the whole city of York was pleased that Cockburn was still dean and tried to raise money to give him a token of their respect. When Cockburn discovered the plan, he insisted they not do it because it would foster unpleasant memories for everyone.[8]
Scriptural geologist
As Dean of York and a Scriptural geologist, he launched his criticisms against the old-earth geological theories of his day, and against what he perceived to be the anti-Christian tendencies of the British Association for the Advancement of Science formed in 1831. He attended the first and fourteenth meetings of the BAAS held in York in 1831 and 1844. Also, he was one of the original vice-presidents of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society and remained a member until at least 1844.
Cockburn wrote a number of short books and pamphlets addressing scientific and, particularly, geological issues. These included a response to the geological theory of Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise,[9] a reply to F.J. Francis' old-earth theory and his attack on Cockburn,[10] a criticism of Murchison's old-earth theory as expressed in his Silurian System,[11] a paper Cockburn read to the geological section of the BAAS in 1844 which again criticised the pre-adamite geological theory,[12] two letters to the editor of The Times criticizing old-earth geological theory and the recently published book on evolution, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation,[13] and finally a fuller statement of his view on the history of the earth in relation to geology and the Scriptures.[14]
Objections to Old-Earth Theories
Cockburn raised questions and logical objections against various aspects of the old-earth theories. While he accepted geologic facts described by Murchison, Buckland and others, he challenged the logic of their deductions and attempted an alternative Flood based solution.
He found it difficult to conceive of the multiple cycles of submergence and elevation postulated to explain the carboniferous formations of alternating coal (from plants grown in situ), sandstone, limestone and clay to explain the death and burial of the Siberian mammoths. Another unsolved problem was the origin of the lime to make vast limestone formations on the base of a granite crust of a cooling earth. Most problematic for Cockburn was the idea of multiple destructions and creations as a result of divine intervention in the course of nature. He complained that few offered any explanation for the repeated origin of plant and animal life—it had happened. And worse, in Cockburn's mind, was that such a view of earth history impugned the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.[15]
Modern critics
Historian Gillespie describes even "reasonably respectable" Cockburn's views as clerical "fulminations against science in general and all its works",[6] and listed his works[16] as among "clerical attacks on geology and uninformed attempts to frame theoretical systems reconciling the geological and scriptural records."[17]
Written works
References
- ^ Pronounced “Cogburn”
- ^ a b The Times, 10 April 1841, p.6 col.b, reprinted from the Cambridge Advertiser
- ^ Obituary (1858). Gentlemen's Magazine. IV: 670–71.
{{cite journal}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ a b "Cockburn, William (CKBN791W)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
- ^ Cockburn, William (1809). Strictures on Clerical Education in the University of Cambridge. In this work he defined his job as Christian advocate to be "to offer replies, according to the best of his abilities, to such new arrangements as may be published against the divine mission of Jesus Christ" (p. 3). Here he complained of the inadequate undergraduate training of men for the ministry and offered suggestions for improving theological and ecclesiastical knowledge.
- ^ a b Gillispie 1996, p. 152
- ^ a b Obituary (15 May 1858). "The Late Dean of York". Yorkshire Gazette: 4.
- ^ a b Aylmer, G.E. (1977). A History of York Minister.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) p. 274-287 - ^ William Cockburn, Letter to Prof Buckland concerning the Origin of the World (1838).
- ^ This was a quick 16-page reply to F.J. Francis' A Brief Survey of Physical and Fossil Geology, which had appeared earlier in 1839. He believed there had been at least four revolutions over the course of millions of years, the Noachian Flood being the last, which produced the valleys, boulders and other diluvial deposits on the earth. This view he believed was perfectly harmonious with Scripture by means of the gap theory. His arguments show that he was heavily relying on the pre-1830 writings of Buckland's, Cuvier and Sedgwick, a fact which revealed how out of touch he, as an old-earth proponent, was with the current thinking of Buckland and Sedgwick on the Flood and its geological consequences. Nevertheless, he charged Cockburn and other Scriptural geologists with having "a zeal which is not according to knowledge--a zeal which is ardent in the mind just in proportion as the truths of natural science are unknown." (p. 92-93.)
- ^ William Cockburn, The Creation of the World, addressed to R.J. Murchison (1840).
- ^ William Cockburn, The Bible Defended against the British Association (1844, fourth edition). Sedgwick's hour and a half long stinging response [summarized in Athenaeum, No. 884 (1844), 903-4] after Cockburn sat down, would have silenced most men. But not Cockburn. He sought private or public interaction with Sedgwick on the issue and his pamphlet went through five editions in just a few months after the September 1844 BAAS meeting. It included correspondence that Cockbum had or tried to have with Sedgwick and other BAAS leaders about the objections he was raising. The 1844 BAAS Report of the meeting gave a two-line notice of the paper remarking that it was critical of Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise. The Report contained no mention of Sedgwick's criticism of it. The events of the day were reported in Chambers' Edinburgh Journal, Vol. I, No. 47 (Nov. 23, 1844), 322-23.
- ^ William Cockburn, "Letter to the Editor." The Times. June 10 (p. 6) and June 20 (p. 4), 1845.
- ^ William Cockburn, New System of Geology (1849)
- ^ 'William Cockburn, (1449), New System of Geology, 29-32, 45-47
- ^ Specifically: The Bible Defended Against the British Association (1839) and A Letter to Professor Buckland Concerning the Origin of the World (1838)
- ^ Gillispie 1996, p. 248
References
- Leigh Rayment's list of baronets
- [Anon.] (1841) A Report of the Proceedings in the Visitatorial Court of His Grace the Archbishop of York, London: Crofts & Blenkarn ;Whitaker & Co.
- Dates at Institute of Historical Research
- Duffus, T. (1854-) Fasti Ecclesiae AnglicanaeIII, iv. 7
- Gillispie, C. C. (1996). Genesis and Geology. London: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674344812.