THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.

Otago Witness, Issue 2051, 15 June 1893, Page 18

THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.

THE DISRUPTION AND DISBSTABLISHMENT. 11. The Evangelical party now undertook the herculean task of undoing a century of the works of Moderatism. At the close of the eighteenth century the doctrines of the Gospel were > nauseated in many parts of Scotland, and especially in Edinburgh. The men I have named fairly turned the tide. Foremost of these in this York was Dr Thomson. His noble manliness, his vigorous style, his ready wit, his masculine sense, his musical taste and talent, and bis genial humour brought his Christian influence to bear on the highest circles of the Scottish capital. His influence in Scotland resembled that of Wilberforca in England, and was deepened by his early and sudden death. A new spirit was infused into the life and work of the church. Pluralities were abolished, discipline enforced, church extension at home and missions abroad enthusiastically prosecuted. Ministerial communion was reopened with the English and Irish Presbyterian Churches, and the Old Light Burghers were drawn within her pale. She next set herself to check and restrain the abuses of patronage. The principle of non-intrusion was fundamental In her constitution. The First Book of Discipline (1561) says : "It appertaineth to every several congregation to eltcfc their minister. . . . This is to be avoided, that any man be violently intruded cr thrust in upon any congregation. . . . The admission of ministers must consist in consent of the people and church . . . and approbation of the learned ministers." This is echoed in the Second Book of Discipline (1581) and in various acts of assembly from 1596 to 1736. And even when the call was a mere form and some wished to abolish it, in 1782 the church declared that "the moderation of a call is agreeable to the immemorial 'and constitutional practice of this church, and ought to be continued." Even the act of 1712 restoring patronages had not abolished the call, but had substituted presentation by a patron for proposal by the heritors ' and elders, and thrown the church back on the act of 1592— an act which she regarded as the Magna Cbarta of her liberties. The church firmly believed that nnder this act she had ample power to check any abuse of patronage. Dr Chalmers, in his London lectures in defence of establishments, boasted of the constitution of the Scottish Church. "We are exposed to nothing from without which can violate the sanctity of the apostolical character if ourselves do not viclate it. We own no head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Even the law of patronage is in force, not by the power of the State, but by the permission of the church. She can exclude; she can deprive; she can depose at pleasure. External force may make an obnoxious individual the holder of a benefice, but there is no external force in these realms that can make him a minister of the Church of Scotland." For 150 years the church's right in spiritual matters had never been questioned. During that time the assembly, acting in concert with the patron and presentee, had often trampled on the conscience of the lower church courts and on the sacred rights of congregations. But from the Revolution no civil power had interfered with anything but the temporalities of the churcb. Accordingly the church did not approach the Legislature for repeal of the law of patronage ; but, believing she had the remedy within her own power, and acting under-the advice of her law agents, she resolved to give effect to the call of the congregation which the Moderate party had reduced to a nullity. With this design, the assembly of 1834 passed The Act on Calls. It was an instruction to presbyteries that if, at the moderating in a call, the major part of the male beads of families "shall disapprove of the parson proposed, such disapproval shall be deemed sufficient ground for the presbytery rejecting such person, and he shall be rejected accordingly." It also provided that the disapproval be from a conscientious and not a factious motive. In- five years 150 settlements were made tinder this act, of which 140 were harmonious. But in giving effect to it the church was soon brought into conflict with the civil courts. In October 1834 the Earl of Kinnoull presented Mr Young, a probationer, to the parish of Auchterarder. When the presbytery met to moderate in a call only two persons assented by signing the call, while 287 heads of families opposed the settlement. Thereupon the presentee was rejected. The patron and presentee applied to the Court of Session to declare the rejection illegal, and to order the presbytery to take the presentee on trials and ordain him if found qualified. By a majority of eight to five the Lords of Session declared the rejection illegal, but issued no order. (la the minority we find the name 3of Moncrieff, Jeffrey, and Cockbarn.) Thi3 decision was given in February 1838. In May the assembly met, by a resolution defined the position the church had always held in such matters and still mcaut to uphold: — " That the General Assembly, while they unqualifiedly acknowledge the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts in regard to civil rights and emoluments . . . and will ever give and inculcate implicit obedience to their decisions thereanent, do resolve . . ,■> that in all matters touching the doctrine, government, and discipline of the church her judicatories possess an exclusive jurisdiction founded on the Word of God . . . which ppwer is spiritual, and flows from God and the Mediator Jesus Christ', the only king and governor of His kirk ; and they do re&olve that this spiritual jurisdiction, and the supremacy and sole headship of the Lord Jesus Christ on which it depends, they will assert and at all hazards defend." Haying thus as it were cleared the decks for action, she instructed her law agent 3to appeal the caso to the House of Lords. Her appeal was rejected and the decision of the Court of Session upheld. The decision itself affected only tb.3 temporalities of the parish, but the speeches of the law lordsChancellor Cottenham and ex-Chancellor Brougham — spread consternation in the church. The latter affirmed that the church had no jurisdiction beyond what was expressly given her by the Act of 1592 ; that by this act presbyteries wera '

" bound and astricted to receive and admit whatsover qualified person is presented by the patron " ; that in judging of qualification the presbytery must have regard solely to "liteiature, life, and manners "^ that to bring in the element of the dissent of the people and to reject on that ground was illegal; and that the call was "not much more than a mere ceremony— immaterial as part of a valid settlement." Then leaving the case in hand he pointed out the course in which the court of session should hereafter proceed. " What is the Court of Session to do if the petitioning part of the summons be insisted on ? This is not now before us. But suppose it were, I should at once make an order on the presbytery to admit if qualified, and to disregard tbe dissent of the congregation, and if they did not admit they broke the laws ; they acted illegally and were liable to the consequences, civil and other. . . Still it is affirmed that the pre3bytery may persist in refusing. My lords, it is indecent to suppose any such case." The church quietly submitted to the decision, and the manse and stipend passed to the patron and presentee ; but the speeches were a gage of battle thrown down to the church. Foremost to take it up was the Stonemason of Oromarty, whose letter to Lord Brougham exposed the ignorance of church history and tore in pieces the law and logic of the ex-chancellor. From this time Hugh Miller was a power in church politics. We shall soon see that the church was not prepared to silence the voice of her people and tie the hands of her presbyteries at the dictation of any man however distinguished. Meanwhile, the battle raged in other quarters. In the case of # Lethecdy, Mr Clark was similarly rejected, and the Crown, patron, presented another (Mr Kessen), who was accepted by the people. Thereupon Mr Clark obtained an interdict to prevent the presbytery from ordaining Mr Kessen. The assembly of 1838, not haviDg time to take it up, referred the case to the commission. This court instructed the presbytery of Dunkeld to disregard the interdict and ordain Mr Kessen. For obeying this order of the higher church court and performing this purely spiritual act of ordination, the presbytery were summoned before the civil court, rebuked and threatened. And afterward?!, in 1843, on another application, damages were awarded to Mr Clark, although he had suffered no loss whatever, ci*il or spiritual. For he was in possession of the manse, glebe, and stipend, and the Court of Session had ordered the Moderate minority to ordain him. The Marnoch case was different. Here the majority of tbe Presbytery of Strathbogie were prepared to intrude Mr Edwards upon a reclaiming congregation. The call was signed by only one head of a family. Dissents were lodged by 261, including six elders. The higher church courts interfered to protect the congregation, and the presentee was rejected. Ths patron abandoned the case and presented another, Mr Henry. Mr Edwards, however, persevered and applied to the Court of Session. He obtained an interdict against Mr Henry appearing before the Presbytery for trials, and a declarator : — " That the presbytery of Strathbogie are still bound and astricted to make trial of the qualifications of the pursuer, Mr Edwards, and if found qualified to receive and admit him as minister of Marnoch." The majority of the presbytery (seven) resolved to obey this mandate and to disregard the injunctions of the assembly and commission. To prevent this act of disobedience — this desecration of ordination — Ihe commission prohibited Mr Edwards from appearing before the presbytery, and suspended these seven ministers until next assembly. Ib also charged the minority (four) to provide supply of ordinances within the bounds of the presbytery. The suspended ministers applied to the civil court for protection against these measures.- It professed to set aside the sentence of suspension, and interdicted the preaching of the Gospel even in the open air in these seven parishes. In defiance of this interdict, the church seat many of her best preachers there; but no one suffered for the breach of interdict except Dr Candlisb, whose nomination to a professorship was cancelled by the Government. The suspended seven at length met as a presbytery, took Mr Edwards on trial and found him qualified. They hesitated to ordain. Another order from the same source removed their scruples. They again in the church of Marnoch. Tho'corjgrcgaticn protested, Hfted their Bibles, and left the church. And then the soh mu mockery of ordination was gone through under the sole authority of the Court of Session. Four months later these seven were deposed by the assembly (1841).

Interdicts' were now issued broadcast", and were broken and thrown aside as waste paper. " Take from us," said Knox, " our free assemblies and you take from us the Gospel." Eut now church courts were interdicted from meeting. Presbyteries were interdicted from trying ministers and probationers accused of fraud, of theft, of drunkenness and profane swearing, asd from debarring from the Lord's table, in all these cases the church disregarded tbe interdicts, and carried out her discipline fearlessly and with impunity. But in tbe second Auchterarder case the patron and Mr Young claimed damages against the presbytery for refusing to perform the purely rpiritual act of ordination. This was upheld both in the Court of Session and in the House of Lords. It was the last straw that breaks the camel'rf back. It declared the church's obligation to ordain a civil obligation, to be enforced by flee and imprisonment. Had the church submitted to these encroachments of the civil courts sbe would have been left without a shadow of independent jurisdiction.

Thus the question cf non-intrusion, which might have been a matter oil arrangement, fe'l into the background, and the question of independent spiritual jurisdiction, regarding which the Evangelical majority could make no compromise, was dragged to the front. The struggle had now come to a crisis. Unless the Legislature interposed to protect the charch, a disruption of the union between church and State was inevitable. A. D. J.

WHY REMAIN DEAF? Professor Harvey's Patent Self-applied, Painless, Electric Head Battery permanently Cures Deafness, Head Noises, Discharges, Billious Headaches. Advice and pamphlet freo. Apply to Professor Harvey, 145 Collins Street, Melbourne. Magnificent Teatuuoniala.