Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

sition of the parties. The proof is to be adduced in March; and, as a matter of course, if not prevented by higher interference, these unfortunate clergymen will then be deposed, so far as the Church has it in her power to enforce a sentence of deposition. This resolute defiance of all law may well induce the boldest admirer of the proceedings of the dominant party to pause. On precisely the same grounds (as was pleaded on the part of the suspended ministers) might every Presbyterian Judge of the Court of Session, who had concurred in pronouncing the obnoxious sentences, be deposed from his functions as an officer-bearer or privileges as a member of the Presbyterian Church. precisely the same grounds, if they are well founded, might and ought the whole minority of the General Assembly to be at one sweep suspended or deposed, because they announce their resolution of performing the statutory duty imposed upon them, and disregarding the illegal Veto Act.

[ocr errors]

On

The fact is, that a regularly organised and widely-spread system of intimidation is already in action against every probationer, nay, every ordained minister, of the Church of Scotland, who ventures to dissent from the arbitrary will of the majority. Is a presentee, for instance, suspected of being lukewarm in the non-intrusion cause, and yet provokingly supported by the majority of heads of families, the Church turns intrusionist at once; the Veto Act is thrown to the winds; the previously despised minority then become all important; and in the very face of their own law, as in the late case of Dalkeith, the most strenuous attempts are made to nullify the presentation on the ground that the presentee holds opinions different from those of the majority: a ground which even Dr. Simpson, a zealous and most consistent non-intrusionist, felt himself compelled to characterise as being the most tyrannical, inquisitorial and detestable objection ever heard of in the Church."* Detestable as it is, however, it finds, as we think, a parallel in the following:-A Mr. Duff, apparently a pious and zealous probationer, applies to the Scotch Colonial Church Committee for an appointment to one of their Missionary Churches in the Colonies. He passes his examination before the committee with distinguished approbation, and is recommended by the subcommittee for the vacant Church of St. Clements at Berbice, for which, in consequence of the death of five former clergymen in 10 months, it was naturally found there was no very strenuous competition. The committee in the mean time discover, not that the character, principles, zeal, or religious qualifications of the candidate, who had been thus powerfully recommended, are deficient, Edinburgh Courant, Nov. 12.

[ocr errors]

but

but that Mr. Duff had attended the church of Mr. Allardyce, one of the seven suspended ministers of Strathbogie; and on this sole ground, which, after the most shuffling attempts to evade the true ground of rejection, they were compelled to avow, the committee, by a large majority, refused to confirm the appointment of the subcommittee! What, indeed, is the cause of religion in the Colonies compared with the cause of non-intrusion terrorism at home? What is even the great cause of Church extension in Scotland. compared with the gratification of party malignity? Look, for instance, at the recent case of Huntly. In that town there is a proved, we think we may say an admitted, abundance of Church accommodation. In the district of Kinore there is an admitted deficiency; in fact, the most extreme and pressing want of a Church. Yet the non-intrusion party, with these facts before them, appropriate 4001. of the Church Extension Fund to erect a new Church in Huntly, where it was not required, leaving Kinore unprovided for. And why? simply because they have determined to set up, if possible, a popular rival to the present deservedly popular clergyman of Huntly, Mr. Walker, who has the misfortune to be one of the seven suspended ministers!

Is it wonderful, if thus administered, that the church extension scheme of the Church of Scotland is in a course of rapid and steady decline?

In the report by Dr. Chalmers for 1838-39 he announced that the year had fallen considerably short of each of the preceding ones. In that for 1839-40 he thus communicates the result:

The present controversial state of the Church has operated most adversely, in particular on that fund known by the designation of the supplementary fund-which, but for our unhappy divisions, might by this time have reached, as we calculate from the actual success in a comparatively small part of Scotland, our confident anticipation twelve months ago of 140,000l., but which, because of these divisions, scarcely, if at all, exceeds the sum of 40,000l.'—a deficit of 60,000l. on the Doctor's calculations, admittedly occasioned by the divisions in the Church!*

The

The effect of the recently awakened spirit of innovation and contempt of all order and discipline on the religious character of the people of Scotland in general is too wide a field to be here entered upon. But the heresy and fanaticism, in particular, which have been fostered in some districts, demand a passing notice. They bring back vividly the wildest days of the fifth-monarchy men, with their strange union of speculative strictness and practical irreligion. The regular clergymen in many parishes are entirely superseded by a set of lay task-masters, assuming to themselves the title of the men, frequently of questionable moral character, but always affecting extreme sanctity, who either patronize or virtually excommunicate clergymen according to their servility or their independence. They impress on the people the duty of not communicating or being baptized except the minister of the parish has previously received the stamp of their approbation. They inculcate the doctrine that the ordinances of religion

VOL. LXVII. NO. CXXXIII.

R

The detail of these proceedings has been a tedious one; but it will enable us to present the conclusions to which we come within a brief compass. We trust that our English readers will now agree with us as to the importance of this question, and the urgent necessity for its settlement on principles consistent with justice, with the interests of religion, and the security of government and law. How are these objects to be conciliated? Various schemes have been proposed.

I. It is proposed that the legislature should legalise the veto. To this our answer is threefold. It is bad in itself: it would give satisfaction to no party: it would lead, by inevitable necessity, to the repeal of patronage. We need not resume the subject of the evils inherent in the veto; its injustice to the patron, its cruelty to the presentee, its malignant influence on the character of the people, and its degradation of the Clergy as a body. These have been adverted to in the outline of the debate of 1833. Even against the intrusion of unacceptable ministers it obviously affords no remedy, for the majority still obtrude their choice on the minority, sometimes almost equal in numbers; nay, the male heads of families, were they unanimous, would still obtrude their choice on the rest of the congregation. True, governments can only regard in general the voice of majorities; but if the question be put on that footing, does it not at once lower this right of a popular negative in the choice of a minister, from the high ground

religion are ineffectual, if not dispensed by certain commissioned officers of their own. Not to attend the communion becomes an honourable distinction, the mark of superior piety, the criterion of spiritual good taste. This may explain a phenomenon which at first appears a little extraordinary; namely, that in many parishes, such as that of Daviot, claiming credit for superior religious real, the whole number of communicants on the roll is found to be only ten. In some cases the number is even less. In one extensive parish, of Skye, remarkable for the prevalence of these extreme views, the communicants on one occasion consisted of five-the clergyman himself, his wife, two sisters, and the schoolmaster-while some hundreds stood by as spectators. In the whole presbytery of Skye, it appeared, by the report submitted to the General Assembly by their committee in 1839, that about 1000 persons voluntarily remained unbaptized. The reaction of this fanatical and utterly irreligious spirit upon the independence and Christian behaviour of the ministers themselves is most lamentable. Knowing in what quarters these wild doctrines are countenanced, they tamely submit to the dictation of their lay tyrants. We shall mention merely an instance or two-not at present giving the names, though we pledge ourselves that these shall be forthcoming when required. Some give up their churches to popular catechists-laymen not ordained as ministers at all, and having no more right to preach or officiate as such than any inspired porter who might choose to step from the street into the pulpit of St. Giles's. One clergyman, to please the men,' is found with more than Roman stoicism excommunicating his own wife! Another, in the vain hope of regaining the favour of the men,' invites a neighbouring clergyman of a more popular character to celebrate the sacrament in his church. He accepts the invitation, and commences the proceedings by striking the minister's name off the roll of communicants; and the humbled minister sits a passive spectator of the sacred rite-excluded, by one who had not a vestige of right to interfere with the communion-roll, from the communion-table in his own church!

of

of an inflexible religious principle, to the level of any other political right to be defined and regulated by the principles of expediency?

That the veto law has proved a total failure is perhaps the only point on which all parties are agreed. This conviction was conspicuously shown in the debate on patronage in the Assembly of 1836. The minority who had always opposed it referred to the experience of the two years during which it had been in action, as fulfilling all their predictions. Oddly enough the majority concurred with them as to the fact, though they differed among themselves as to the reasons. It has worked ill, said the vetoists, because the patrons, instead of exercising the right of presentation, have, in the majority of instances, handed over the choice to the people. These are precisely the instances, retorted the anti-patronage section of the Assembly, in which it has worked well;-wherever it has operated as was intended, simply as a veto by the people, it has produced nothing but dissension and discontent. The Veto Act,' said Mr. Colquhoun, it was said, would bring peace. He must say that it had not produced peace; and they had seen repeated proofs to the contrary.'

[ocr errors]

Would the sanction of this abortive measure, then, by the legislature, satisfy the Clergy, or the people, in whose name the privilege is demanded? Most assuredly not. The interest taken by the people in the present controversy has indeed been grievously exaggerated; but such as it is, it is directed to very different objects than a mere veto on the nomination of the patron. What they expect, and have been led by clerical agitation to consider as the right of the people, is popular election of the ministers. What other consequence, indeed, could follow from the position in which they were placed by the Veto Act? While the right of presentation was in the patron, and the right of judgment in the presbytery, the people, possessing merely the right of objection, were placed in a just but comparatively humble position. But when presbyteries, recording their own incompetency, transferred the right of judgment to the people, on what grounds were the latter to be persuaded that those who were entitled to exercise an irresponsible and irreversible judgment were not just as much entitled to the initiative of presentation? What right could an obnoxious third party have to interfere in the formation of the contract between the minister and the Christian people? A patron became simply an intruder; at best a needless superfluity. Patronage must not be limited; it must be transferred to the people. Even those prominent clergymen who did not relish this conclusion found themselves obliged to yield to it, and to stimulate the agitation they had inadvertently caused. In the

[blocks in formation]

progress of the question they had calculated on dropping the Christian people' at the first turning; but now finding it necessary to march through Coventry with them, they made up their minds rather to head than to follow the procession.

At first the real tendency of all this agitation was studiously concealed; to many, indeed, it is possible it may not have been obvious. The limits of credulity, and consequently of sincerity, are undefinable. The Veto Act was held forth as the conductor by which the threatened storm was to be peaceably averted from patronage; not, as it really was, the surest means of directing the lightning against it. Even yet we know we shall be told that hostility to patronage is not the general feeling of the Assembly; that this is but the wild theory of insulated and uninfluential individuals. We look to facts, and derive but small consolation from such a guarantee.

6

On the part of Mr. Dunlop and the instalment-men—a constantly increasing body in the Assembly, who, to do them justice, never professed to view the Veto Act but as a 'vantage-ground from which greater concessions might be extorted-it has all along been admitted that abolition of patronage was their object. The majority against the abolition of patronage greatly dropped from 1834 to 1836, while the veto was in full vigour. What is the state of the case at this moment? Sir George Sinclair, though he conceives the idea of the repeal of patronage by parliament visionary, represents its existence as a fatal blow to the independence of the Church;' something which, if there were the least chance of success, it would be the duty of the Church to struggle against and to subvert. Mr. Colquhoun would be glad if patronage were altogether abolished,' though in the meantime he may be contented to take something less. These gentlemen are members of parliament, and know in what light a direct proposal for the repeal of patronage is likely to be there viewed. But Mr. MacGill Crichton, the itinerating lay orator of the Church, who is not yet a member of parliament, but has done well in fixing on the country as a more promising arena than the parliament for the labours of his ecclesiastical patriotism," recommends an instant subscription to the anti-patronage bond.† Dr. Chalmers is now satisfied that what Charles Fox said of the African slave-trade is true of Scottish patronage, that it is a system not to be regulated but destroyed.-Let the question take its own swing! Mr. Candlish, late secretary of the Non-Intrusion Committee, a gentleman who has a quarrel with episcopacy

[ocr errors]

* Dr. Chalmers, What ought the Church?' &c. p. 62.

This document is exactly in the style of the covenants of former days.

Dr. Chalmers, ibid., p. 62.

*

altogether,'

« НазадПродовжити »