Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

moved at a distance from all local and personal feelings upon the occasion, and, in as far as such a thing is possible, elevated, I hope, above that party spirit from which not even the Church of Scotland is exempted, I read with something bordering upon surprise and regret, those expressions of controversial heats and animosities, in which some publications, which now lie before me, abound. "The gross misrepresentation of the principles and motives of the Presbytery and Synod,"-" An utter disregard to truth and every honourable feeling," -"An absurd and malicious calumny,"-" An unmerited slander," &c. &c: these, and similar phrases, however expressive of the excited and indignant feelings of the worthy individual, who, in the quietude of his closet, and under all the advantages of his official situation, makes use of them, fail, I am afraid, from their very strength, to convey the impression intended, and prove, incontestably, that a cause which relies upon its own intrinsic merits, is generally injured by all such expressions. The venerable author of these strong terms talks in this manner, in consequence, however, of provocation, of which I have not thead vantage to be informed,-for, with the exception of the above-mentioned pamphlets f, which are principally occupied with his own speeches, or with those of his adherents and supporters, I have not yet even heard of any publication upon the subject. Situated as I am, I cannot help contemplating the Professor in the light of one who has, what in Scotland is termed "the sair chap, and the loud cry;" for, whilst he is smashing away with the fore-hammer of Johnson's Dictionary, and dealing about his "verba sesquipedalia" con amore, he is ever and anon making the roof of his study ring with direful and doleful vituperations and complaints.

In the next place, I beg leave, before entering upon the merits of the question, in its application to the

case of Principal MacFarlane, to observe, that I verily believe both parties, on this occasion, are not only perfectly in earnest, but have very plausible grounds upon which to found their reasonings; and, at this moment, with all my decided leanings towards the general principle on the one hand, and the application of this principle to the particular case under consideration, on the other, I find myself not a little embarrassed betwixt the two. On the one hand, the inexpediency, upon general grounds, of such a union of offices of the most important and laborious description, presents itself strongly before me; whilst, on the other, the clear and distinct deliverance of the law compels me to hesitate, and to consider whether or not it be safe and proper to make an Act of the Church give way before the expediency of a particular case. I see an object which I myself wish, I have no hesitation in stating, to reach, and which the Church has been trying, at intervals, for years to reach-the abolition, namely, of" all Pluralities"-I see this hanging, as it were, upon a particular case; and yet, when I cast my eye upon the very last deliverance, not of the General Assembly alone, but of the majority of Presbyteries legally consulted, and this deliverance confirmed by a solemn and printed Act of Assembly, I am staggered in my aim, and begin to consider whether or not the thing can be accomplished without doing an act of injustice to an individual, who is entitled, as every son of the Church, and every British subject is, to the benefit and cover of the existing laws, whether these laws be good or bad, founded in wisdom, or concocted in folly.

The question, then, as the case now stands, seems to amount to this: Does the existing and unrepealed law of the Church render imperative, upon the Presbytery of Glasgow, the settlement of Principal MacFarlane in the High Church, or does it not?

I am quite aware, and have already admitted, that it can be shewn,

Vide Professor MacGill's preface to Dr Chalmers' speech-(Passim).

The publication of the Speeches of the Presbytery and Synod of Glasgow, compiled by Mr Mac Phun, together with Dr Chalmers' Speech, given to the public under the patronage and sanction of the very Reverend Professor MacGill.

both from Acts of Parliament, and from those of the General Assembly, that Pluralities, except in cases particularly specified as exceptions, were uniformly considered as inconsistent with the original character and best interests of our Church; and I willingly admit, likewise, that those exceptions which have from time to time been made, have originated in a real, or supposed necessity, and have afterwards been permitted to multiply per incuriam. I will go further than this, and aver, that of late in particular, (within these last forty years,) this inattention on the part of the Church has been construed into a sanctioning, as it were, of a practice, which that Church, under the existing laws, and in reference to the spirit of her constitution, had no authority to sanction. And now that the matter has come to a crisis, as it were, and that the evil spirit of innovation and plurality is rallying on the one side, and the old and better principle of residence and complete efficiency has been brought up into array, and into contrast over against it-I say distinctly, that it appears to me to be the duty of every true son of the Presbyterian Church to look to the bulwarks of Zion, and to blow the trumpet of alarm and of defence. Yet there may be more haste than good speed, even in a good cause." Festina lente" is good Latin; and, by a blindfold precipitancy, the interests of the very best cause may be injured, if not finally ruined. "Fiat justitia ruat cœlum." Let us execute justice or law to the best of our judgment in the meantime, and then let us legislate, if legislation appears necessary, with the view of preventing the recurrence of the like evil in future. This, then, conducts me at once to the jet and key-stone of the argument. Is the Church of Scotland authorized, under the existing law, to deny Principal MacFarlane induction into the High Church-yes or no? What is that existing law? The last, namely, which has been passed by the Assembly upon the subject; for, in all cases, specified or implied, it either confirms or supersedes all others. It is, in short, the rule, to the full and fair amount of its import, which the Church is

bound, in this case, to follow; and it is conceived, in as far as concerns the matter before us, in the following words:

[ocr errors]

"Act anent Uniou of Offices."

"Whereas, apprehensions have been generally entertained, that the permission given, in a few recent instances, to Clergymen holding a Professorship in an University, to hold, at the same time, a parochial charge in the country, may introduce abuses hurtful to the interests of religion and literature; the General Assembly, conceiving that it is their duty to watch over both these interests, and feeling a becoming solicitude to maintain, inviolate, the residence of Ministers in their respective parishes, which the fundamental laws of this church require, and by which the people of Scotland enjoy, in full measure, the comfort and edification of a Gospel Ministry, direct all the Presbyteries of this Church to employ the means competent for them, in order to prevent the same person from holding, at the same time, a Professorship in an University, and a Parochial charge which is not situated in the city which is the seat of that University, or in the suburbs thereof; and that this direction may be uniformly carried into effect, the General Assembly do, with the consent of a majority of the Presbyteries of this Church, enact and ordain, that if a Professor in an University be hereafter presented to a Parochial charge which is not situated in the city that is the seat of that University, or in the suburbs thereof, he shall, within nine months after his being admitted to the said charge, resign his Professorship, and at the next ordinary meeting of Presbytery thereafter, shall produce to the Presbytery a certificate that his resignation has been accepted ;" and-(here follows the converse or the election of a Minister to a Professorship, in which case, the Minister's resignation must take place within six months,) then it is observed in conclusion, "that Chapels of Ease are included, and that the Old and New Towns of Aberdeen shall be held as forming one city, so far as respects the provisions of the overture.'

Now, it is asserted by those who

oppose the settlement of Professor MacFarlane, that this "Act" does not, in fact, refer to the case in question; but that it refers to that of residence, and to that only, leaving all other points connected with settlements, except that of residence, which, to the extent of the import of the Act it enjoins, to be determined as formerly, before the passing of this Act, and according to the then existing "rules of the Church."

That this preliminary question, which still leaves these rules" of the Church to be considered, may be determined, it is necessary to take a short retrospective view of the circumstances under which, and in consequence of which, this overture was sent to the Presbyteries, and passed into a law. It is well known, and indeed not denied by either party, that however hostile the spirit of Presbytery might be to double offices, these have, in every period of her history, under one form or another, existed," and it is likewise equally unquestioned, that, for many years past, Professorships and Principalities, which are, in fact, Professorships in all but the title, have actually existed in connection with Church livings, and this, too, unchallenged. Abuse, however, is apt to advance upon use, and an indulgence, or accommodation, has ultimately been converted into a distinct and most unconstitutional accommodation, to the convenience and interests of individuals. Professorships began to be united with Church livings, not, as formerly, in the same city with the Universities, but in the country, and at a very considerable distance from the University seat. The cases of Dr Arnot and of Mr Ferrie were, at a considerable interval of time, keenly contested, and were with difficulty carried, on the avowed and expressed ground, that no law of the Church existed to prevent the General Assembly from sanctioning such unions. The individuals, it was said, had, from the absence of any distinct and explicit law upon the case, and from a practice which had

crept in, in favour of such unions, acquired a right of expectation which it was not expedient, though it might, in strict law, be competent for the Assembly to disappoint. There was, in short, as the Church in general is well aware, an almost universal outcry for " a new law," for the express purpose of preventing in future any such glaring abuses as had then occurred. That new law was immediately overturned, and remitted to the various Presbyteries of the Church, that it might be regularly passed, by receiving, at last, the sanction of the Assembly, which actually took place in the year seventeen. Now, this Act thus obtained, was, after all, a mere compromise, for there were some members of Assembly who argued loudly for the restoration of things to what they conceived their primitive state, and were for cutting off all pluralities whatever; whilst other members boldly and explicitly justified the established custom, upon the ground of expediency, as holding out an encouragement to Clerical eminence, as well as to Professorial soundness of faith. The "medio tutissimus" was adopted; and whilst the abuse of an old custom, sanctioning the union of Professorial and Clerical offices, was clearly and explicitly provided against, the former use was left still in force-in other words, things were brought back to the state in which they were previous to these extreme cases, which had so deeply interested, and so widely agitated the Church. In Ferrie's case, the two parties, each contending for their own favourite schemes, were so equally balanced, that both were disposed to depart something from the extent of their full demands, and hence the

66

compromising spirit" which is evinced in the Act 1817. It is from this circumstance, provisioned in the Act in as express terms as could be adopted, that "all Presbyterics of the Church shall employ the means competent for them, in order to prevent"-what? not the union of Professorial and Clerical of

It was argued by Dr MacKnight and others, "We are the better for a few prizes in the lottery of Church preferment; and by placing Churchmen in, or over, Universities, you have the best possible guarantee of their orthodoxy, and of the communi. eation of wholesome and moral instruction to the youth committed to their care.'

fices in general, and in every particular case, for that is not submitted, by the Act of the Church, to their cognizance, it is left, in other words, precisely where it was before; but it is competent for the Presbyteries to prevent this thing in particularthe same person, namely, from holding, at the same time, a Professorship in an University, and a Parochial charge which is not situate in the city which is the seat of that University, or in the suburbs thereof." And, lest any person in the circumstances described should receive prejudice from the definition of city and suburbs mentioned, it is added, that the New and Old City of Aberdeen are to be considered as one city, so far as respects the provisions of the Act. Now, I ask every impartial person, wherefore all this guarding, and definition, and limiting, if these Clergyinen who are not placed without the city in which the seat of an University, where they hold a chair, is, are to be considered as precisely in the same predicament, and under the same incapacity with those who are so situated?

But I may still be told, that there is a difference betwixt the situation of those included in the Act, and those who are excluded; in as much as the former are positively prohibited from holding such offices; whereas the latter are still left in the power of the Presbytery, with regard to double livings.

It is not true, however, that those who are excluded by the limitations of this Act remain precisely in the same situation in which they would have been had no such law been passed. The express title of the overture is, "An Act anent the Union of Offices;" and if, whilst it expressly abolishes one species of union, it as distinctly excepts from this abolition another species of union, then it would appear to follow, as a matter of unavoidable induction, that the instances excepted are to be considered as exempted, at the same time, from the disqualifications upon which this law of "prevention" proceeds. Residence is the law of the Church, and to prevent an infringement of this law, it is enacted, that no Professor shall be permitted to undertake a Pastoral charge at a distance from the city

where his University seat is: and does not this, by a plain, and a common-sense inference, imply, that if the Pastoral charge is not beyond the limits marked out by the act, such a union of offices may be at least tolerated? Take any other similar case in illustration. A custom has crept in, I shall suppose, of spearing fish during what is called close, or spawning time; and in order to prevent this outrage in future, a new law is passed, by which every person is expressly prohibited from spearing fish" before the 23d of February.” What is the inference which will naturally be drawn from such an enactment? May it not be reasoned in this manner: "my right to spear salmon was formerly a matter of doubt; there was nothing but use and wont in its favour; but now, in the specification of this new law, it is, by implication, ratified, as, after the twenty-third of February, there is no penalty announced upon my exercising my fish-spear as formerly." Or view the matter thus:-You are in the habit of walking by a footpath across your neighbour's field; out he comes, however, of a morning in harvest, and tells you plainly, that after such a day, you are not to walk, or, that beyond such a boundary you are not to come. Is not this intimation of his tantamount to a permission to walk up to the date, and to the extent specified, particularly as the man transgressing had been known to be in the habit of exercising this privilege formerly?

But granting, after all, every inch of ground which Professor MacGill has demanded, and allowing that, even after the enactment of this law, in the year 1817, the general question comes still to be tried by the laws and the usages previously existing, it appears to me, that even here Principal MacFarlane's right is a clear one. I would ask, how came the Principal's predecessor into his double offices? and how happened it, that, possessed of the power to prevent, in consistency with the laws of the Kingdom and of the Church, such Unions, the Presbyteries, and the General Assemblies of former times, were so supine and ineffi cient, as, in the language of act seventeen, not to prevent them? The

answer is simply this, these men, looking, at the same time, to the practice and to the laws of the Church, did conceive that there was a discretionary power committed to them, which, (whether rightly or erroneously it is not necessary to say) they exercised, and by this exercise they created a reason able expectation in the mind of Dr MacFarlane, and of all whose talents or interest might place such contingencies within the sphere of their ambition, that the practice of past Presbyteries and Assemblies would still continue to regulate the practice of those to come. Dr MacFarlane was entitled to expect, that if any change should take place in the views and in the conduct of Presbyteries, in regard to such unions, of this change he should have due and timely warning, as, without "a declaratory act," at least, the use and wont of the Church was decidedly in his favour. When Mr Ferrie's case was under consideration, this was exactly the tenor of argument which the learned Law Lords uniformly pursued; and even by those amongst the members of both sides who were most anxious for the prevention of such occurrences in future, it was distinctly allowed, that the law "about to be made" could not have "a retrospect," and that the Professor of Civil History was entitled, from several precedents which were adduced, to enjoy his double living. The case of MacFarlane is nothing to this. But, were it even more aggravated than it is in all its features and circumstances, yet still, as the practice stands, and has long stood, altogether independent even of the express act of 1817, Dr MacFarlane is entitled to all the benefits of induction into his Pastoral charge at Glasgow.

Is, then, it will be asked, and indeed has often been asked, in a tone of triumph, Is the Church quite helpless on such occasions? Has she nothing for it but to admit one case, to carry into execution one presentation after another, till the evil has attained that head and maturity against which it may ultimately be vain to struggle? By no means. What did the Church do in Profes. Bor Ferrie's case? They ordered the

Presbytery to proceed with his settlement, whilst they were employed in devising and concerting an overture, to prevent the like settlements in future. And has not the measure which they then adopted been suc cessful? Where is the man who, whilst the law of 1817 stands unrepealed, will dare to insult a Presbytery, by demanding admission into a church, under circumstances simi. lar to those in which Arnot and Ferrie were placed? And what have we to do more, but to follow out, in the year 1824, what was partially, and only partially, accomplished in the year 1817? Let the 1824 Assembly direct the Presbytery of Glasgow to proceed with the settlement of Dr MacFarlane, and then address themselves incontinently to the reparation of that, breach through which he, along with so many more, has passed. Let them concur in remitting an overture to the Presbyteries of the Church, in consistency with the Barrier Act, providing, that, in future, no pluralities, in any case, shall be tolerated, or at least that they shall be declared illegal in all cases not particularly and specifically exempted. Should any stand be attempted against such an overture as this, then there will be a most opportune season for overwhelming the Assembly with arguments of expediency, with those deductions from scripture, reason, history, and common sense, which may all be brought to bear most urgently and directly upon this point. Then the venerable and patriotic Professor MacGill may urge "the ministrations of the sanctuary," the important duties of "visiting and catechising," "the visits to the house of mourning," "the duties to the sick and the dying," " the consideration of personal duties," "the need of improvement" and "more extended knowledge," "the dreadful consequences attending negligence"-" weaknesses, corruptions, sins," and all this with an opportune and overwhelming effect. Then the fervid and irresistible Chalmers may talk with propriety of churches built and to be built,of an encreasing population, and an encreasing demand for efficient and Gospel Ministers,—of the “independence of the Patron on the Presby

« AnteriorContinuar »