Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

fundamental principles of Scotch Presbyterianism was to be extinguished. It also assumed that the opinions and sentiments of the people with regard to this principle could be suppressed by decrees of the General Assembly, forgetting that the people had fought and bled in opposing patronage for a period of nearly two centuries. In short, taking all the facts and circumstances in connection with patronage into account, it would have been a wiser policy, and more worthy of Robertson's historic mind, if he had employed his talents and influence to abolish patronage. Dr. Robertson's ecclesiastical policy had a deadening tendency, inasmuch as those who followed it had no higher principle than that of a cringing allegiance to patrons, so his party lost the confidence and the respect of the people because they had cast off the historic glory of their Church. The descent of the majority of the Scotch clergy in the last half of the eighteenth century was remarkable; their earnestness, spirit, and abilities, faded. Dr. Robertson retired from the management of ecclesiastical affairs in 1780.

In 1781 the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr presented overtures to the General Assembly touching patronage, which insisted that no call should be sustained unless it was signed by a majority of the heritors, elders, and communicants of the parish. But the Assembly dismissed this proposal because it was of a dangerous tendency. The Synods of Dumfries, Perth, and Stirling overtured the Assembly to state explicitly what was meant by a call, but these, too, were simply dismissed. The following year the Synods of Glasgow and Ayr, Perth and Stirling, Fife, Galloway, Lothian, and Tweeddale, unitedly appeared before the Assembly and stated that several presbyteries had recently inducted ministers without the moderation of a call, and prayed the Assembly to prohibit such proceedings in the future. Dr. George Hill, who had then assumed the leadership of the Moderate party, opposed the prayer of the synods, and said that the Assembly might at once dismiss the overtures; but to quiet the minds of the people, and prevent persons from spreading an opinion that the Church was

and second the motion. I accordingly began, and was seconded by Gordon in a vigorous speech, which occasioned great alarm on the other side, as if we were determined to get rid of the whole Presbytery; but this was only in terrorem, for by concert, one of our senior brethren proposed that the Assembly should rest content with what they had done, and this was carried."-Ibid., pp. 255

256.

Another secession sprang from Gillespie's deposition, which soon increased in numbers.

deserting her Presbyterian principles, he moved that the Assembly should declare that the moderation of a call was the immemorial practice of the Church, and dismiss the overtures as unnecessary. Another eminent Moderate, Dr. Macknight, then moved that the resolution should be: "The Assembly, having considered overtures, declare that the moderation of a call in settling ministers is agreeable to the immemorial practice of the Church, and ought to be continued." The popular party voted for this motion, and it was carried; but as to what constituted a call was left undefined. Again, in 1783, the synods of Perth, Stirling, and Fife brought this point before the Assembly; the kingdom of Fife was stamped with the spirit of Melville, and never deserted the popular cause. They implored the Assembly to make the utmost efforts to get the Act of 1712 repealed and the Act of 1690 restored. The Moderate party wanted to throw out the overtures without a debate; but the popular party proposed that Presbyteries should be instructed to consult with the landed gentry within their bounds, and report the result to the next Assembly. In the debate, it was stated that the aversion of the people to patronage was invincible, and could never be overcome; but the proposal was defeated by a majority of nine. Once more, in 1784, the synods of Glasgow and Ayr, Perth and Stirling, appeared before the Assembly, praying for the removal of patronage. It was proposed that the landed gentry should be consulted touching the divising of some means to remedy this insufferable evil; but the Moderate party became enraged, and carried a motion declaring that the overtures were ill founded and dangerous to the welfare of the Church. They further declared that henceforth patronage was not to be considered as a grievance.

In spite of this resolution of the majority, the synod of Perth and Stirling and the presbytery of Dumfries again appeared before the Assembly of 1785, with overtures touching the repeal or alteration of the law of patronage. But it was of no avail, the overtures were rejected by a large majority. The popular party, though in a minority in the Assembly, were not in a minority among the people; as they wielded the greatest influence on the heart and soul of the nation.

A grand revolution was preparing, unlike anything which had before been evolved, insomuch that scarcely a man in the British Parliament could comprehend its principles or understand its end. The changed state and circumstances of society in Britain rendered

the original theocratic conception impracticable, while the original and fundamental principles of Presbyterianism were almost incomprehensible to politicians and lawyers beyond the Tweed. Hence their futile, and laughable efforts to check the evolution of the movement.

As an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the popular party proposed in the General Assembly of 1833, that when a majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented by the patron, the presbytery of the bounds should not proceed with the settlement. The proposal was debated at great length; both parties exerted themselves to the utmost. At last Dr. Cook moved that the proposal should be approved, and a committee appointed to consider the best means of carrying it into execution; and this was carried by a majority of four. The Assembly of 1834 passed it into an Act; and the effect of the Act was simply this, that when a clear majority of the male heads of families, being members of the congregation, and in full communion with the Church, deliberately objected to the presentee's settlement as their minister, in that case the presbytery of the bounds should not proceed to thrust him upon the congregation. This famous regulation is elsewhere called "The Veto Act." It was on this simple and reasonable rule that the grand struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought. This was the hinge on which the conflict externally turned, although, of course, there were other principles involved in it.

The ultimate issue of such a conflict greatly depended upon the prevailing ideas touching the rights of man, as a reasonable and responsible agent, a free and social agent, a being not only accountable to external authorities, but also to his own conscience and to God. If the body of the people are merely conceived to exist for the convenience, pleasure, and glory of the privileged and ruling class, it follows as a consequence that the Church will be conceived and used as an instrument of the Government, as a mere prop of the power of the State. But to the credit of Scotland in the struggle under review, the first class of conceptions indicated above, gave such a manifestation of their vitality as astonished the British Government.

Without entering into many details, I shall present a summary of the leading steps in the revolution. For some time the Veto Act worked beneficially, and the internal discipline and order of the Church was improving. But self-interest and love of power are

strong and often blind motives; so it was determined to maintain patronage in its most rigorous and offensive form. In 1834 the Earl of Kinnoul presented Mr. Robert Young, preacher of the gospel, to the parish of Auchterarder, in Perthshire; and the presbytery of the district proceeded according to the usual forms to admit him; but only two of the parishioners signed his call, and therefore the presbytery could not settle him in the parish. The case, in due course, was brought before the Court of Session; and in March, 1838, a majority of the Lords gave judgment to the effect that the presbytery had acted contrary to the provisions of the statute of Queen Anne, of 1712. The General Assembly met in May, 1838, and the Rev. Robert Buchanan, of Glasgow, proposed a motion which affirmed the spiritual independence of the Church. It was opposed by Dr. Cook, who moved an amendment. But after a long and vehement debate, Buchanan's motion was carried by a majority of forty-one.

The collision between the Church and the civil power was begun in earnest, and could not continue long. The Auchterarder case was appealed to the House of Lords-the English Law Lords; and they came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the civil court, even in a matter which involves the spiritual act of ordination, is supreme, and must be obeyed; consequently, they affirmed the judgment of the Court of Session. This settled the point that the rejection of a patron's presentee, entirely on the ground of the dissent of the congregation, was illegal; but it also implied and involved the conclusion that the congregation had no legal standing at all in the settlement of their minister. Their simple and only duty in the matter was to submit quietly to whoever the patrons thought fit to place over them.

The General Assembly met on the 16th of May, 1839, and intimation of the grounds of the final struggle was given. Dr. Cook, the chief of the Moderate party, at once announced that he himself, and those who acted with him, had resolved to conduct the affairs of the Church in accordance with the decrees of the civil courts. Dr. Chalmers then intimated that he would submit some motion to the Assembly. The debates were long and animated. Dr. Cook insisted that the Veto Act, by the decisions of the courts, was rendered not an Act of the Church at all, as the Church had been acting under an error. Dr. Chalmers' motion was in effect that the Church bowed to the decision of the court so far as matters of civil rights were concerned, but

avowed that "Whereas the principle of non-intrusion is one coeval with the reformed Kirk of Scotland, and forms an integral part of its constitution, embodied in its standards, and declared in various Acts of Assembly; the General Assembly resolved that this principle cannot be abandoned, and that no presentee shall be forced upon any parish contrary to the will of the congregation.

"And whereas, by the decision above referred to, it appears that when this principle is carried into effect in any parish, the legal provision for the sustentation of the ministry in that parish may be thereby suspended, the General Assembly being deeply impressed with the unhappy consequences which must arise from any collusion between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and holding it to be their duty to use every means in their power, not involving dereliction of the principles and fundamental laws of their Church constitution, to prevent such unfortunate results, do hereby appoint a committee for the purpose of considering in what way the privileges of the national establishment and the harmony between Church and State may remain unimpaired, with instructions to confer with the Government of the country."

This motion was finally carried by a majority of forty-nine, and a deputation from the committee appointed under it proceeded to London; but the Government then in office was weak. In short, the Government were never anxious to grapple with the different views which were taken of the operation of patronage, or to interfere by legislation on the limits and extent of the ecclesiastical power of the Church of Scotland. Then their almost utter ignorance of the real merits of the matters in dispute was another reason for the apathy of the British Government. So little were they aware of the true facts of the case, that they never dreamed of such an event as the Disruption.

The excitement in the country was rising fast. In the end of the year 1839, the seven rebellious ministers of the presbytery of Strathbogie were suspended, to prevent them from proceeding with the settlement of Mr. Edwards in the parish church of Marnoch, to which he had been presented several years before, it became manifest that the crisis was approaching its issue. The seven suspended ministers placed their faith upon the Court of Session, and in that quarter they showed great energy. They obtained first an interdict to prevent the minority of the presbytery, and all others, from using the church, churchyard, and school-house, in executing the sentence

« AnteriorContinuar »