CHAP. VI sole dissen score of the law." 1934. called the author of the disruption; and among these reasons —fourteen in all-there was undoubtedly a prominent place given to the question of competency. But even Mr. Hope, Mr. Hope the who was the author and sole subscriber of these fourteen tient on the reasons, does not pretend that, in virtue of the alleged incompetency of the incompetency of the church to pass the veto-law, the civil court could do more than alienate the benefice. His words are these: Because I am clearly of opinion, in point of law, that a presentee, though rejected by a majority of the heads of families, yet, there being no judgment of the church courts on his qualifications, will nevertheless be legally, validly, and effectually presented to the benefice, and will have a clear right to the stipend and all other rights appertaining thereto." That even Mr. Hope accounted this to be the ne plus ultra of the civil court's power in the matter, is conclusive evidence of the fact, that at the period now under consideration, and as will afterwards be shown, for some years later, there was no man connected with the church of Scotland who ever dreamt of such a thing as that the civil courts could annul the spiritual sentences of the church, or compel the church courts to perform spiritual acts under the pains and penalties of civil law. Men's minds, the minds even of the extremest supporters of moderatism,—had not then learned to admit a doctrine so degrading to their church and to themselves, and so dishonouring to its great Head and Lord. Even Mr. Hope limited the alleged benefice. tency to the Act, the measure of The other important measure which signalized the assem- The Chapel bly of 1834, was that which is familiarly known by the name other great of the chapel act. The origin and object of this measure 1831 have been already noticed in reviewing the proccedings of the assembly of the year before. After the overtures and petitions upon the subject had been called for in the usual form, certain ministers of chapels of ease were heard in support of them from the bar. One of these ministers, the the bar, of the Rev. Andrew Gray. CHAP. VI. Rev. Andrew Gray, then of Woodside chapel, Aberdeen, 1834. stated the case with a fulness of information and a force of argument which left little or nothing to be supplied. "It Speech from having been thought desirable," said he, "by many of my brethren, that some of ourselves should appear before you this day, it has fallen to me to act as one of their representatives, and I therefore earnestly hope that you will not think me too bold in advancing to your bar, but will grant me what I very much require, your indulgent consideration. No one denies that the present status of chapel of ease ministers, and the present condition of chapel of ease congregations are altogether anomalous, and at variance with fundamental principles of the constitution of the church. On this point we do not need to dwell for the purpose of removing doubt in regard to it. Happily there are no such doubts. But it is affirmed that in the case of chapels of ease there is a conflict of principles. While it is admitted that there is an infringement of important principles in withholding from a pastor the power of ruling, and from a congregation the privilege of what the standards call a congregational assembly, that is, a session; it is held also to be an infringement of an important principle to invest a minister with authority, and to give a congregation its appropriate judicatory where there is no endowment. We are said to the Chapel be attempting to make an innovation upon the fabric of the of innovat church of Scotland, which would be essentially opposed to ing upon the constitution its character and well-being as a religious establishment. The sup porters of Act accused of the Church. All our arguments about the constitution of the church- 1834. nant with danger, and a worse anomaly than any exists. repels the and affirms accusation: the chapel system to be the true innovation. "Against the position then that what we ask is something Mr. Gray new and unprecedented,-something contrary to the genius of our religious establishment, and therefore incompatible with its welfare,-I beg that the house will allow me to direct my efforts. By means of a short series of historical propositions, I hope to be able, not only to show that it is untenable, but also to show that, instead of advocating, we are opposing a novelty, when we plead for our admission to all pastoral privileges; and that, in addition to the fact, which our opponents admit, that the great constitutional principles relating to the rights of congregations and the functions of the pastoral office are against their views; it is likewise a fact, that they have the practice of this established church against them for nearly two hundred years." port of the tion of the ruling from the teaching powers of the pastoral office un known for 200 years The propositions with which Mr. Gray followed up this Mr. Gray's five proposi singularly lucid introduction were five in number, and all of tions in supthem he substantiated by the clearest and most satisfactory Chapel Act. historical evidence. The first of these propositions affirmed that the disjunction of the ruling from the teaching power The disjunc of the pastoral office, in the case of ordained ministers having particular congregations, and the exclusion of such ministers from church courts on any grounds whatever, were things totally unknown in the church of Scotland for two hundred years after the reformation. "That the indivisibility, if I may so term it, of the pastoral office," observed Mr. Gray, speaking on this point, "had always been religiously acted on, becomes apparent when we advert to what took place in 1751 and 1753. In the former of these years, a reference from the presbytery of Edinburgh came before the assembly, regarding the status of the castle chaplain. Till then he had uniformly been received as a clerical member of presbytery, and had been returned, in his rotation, as a com after the reformation. CHAP. VI. missioner to the general assembly. The way in which the 1834. Report of the reference was disposed of is most noticeable. "The report committee in 1751 in the chaplain of EdinLurghcastle. of Assembly of the committee, named on Thursday last, to consider the the case of reference from the presbytery of Edinburgh, for advice with respect to receiving the minister of the castle of Edinburgh as a member of the presbytery, brought in, containing an overture that the assembly advise the presbytery of Edinburgh to receive and admit Mr. John Johnstone, minister of the castle of Edinburgh, to be a member of the said presbytery: and the assembly, not having time to consider the same, ordered that it be signified to the presbytery of Edinburgh, that a committee of assembly had given their opinion above-mentioned, which the presbytery may have under their consideration, and follow it or not, as they see cause.' Can anything show more clearly," continued Mr. Gray, after quoting this minute of the assembly, 1751, "that the proposal to withdraw from an ordained minister the power of ruling, and to refuse him a seat in church courts, was, at this time, a startling novelty, -a thing never before heard of, and for which, in the first instance, the assembly was by no means prepared." The case thus adduced is conclusive as to what the practice of the church, anterior to that period, must have been. Another fact, not less decisive on this point, and to which also Mr. Gray made reference, was the judgment pronounced, in regard to missionary ministers, by the assembly of 1753. That assembly prohibited presbyteries from returning these missionary ministers, or itinerants, as they were called, as ing mission- members of the general assembly: a prohibition which it could never have been necessary to issue had not the practice of the church been strongly in favour of sanctioning the right of all ordained ministers to rule as well as to teach. The very circumstance that presbyteries had been carrying this right so far as to concede it even to a class of ministers who had no fixed pastoral charge, proves to demonstration The judg ment of the Assembly 1753 regard ary minis ters. other propc 1834. that, in the case of ministers settled in "particular congre- CHAP. VL gations," the right of sitting in church courts had, up till that time, been regarded as a matter of course. The other propositions which Mr. Gray laid down and established, Mr. Gray's embraced such points as these:-That the church of Scot- sitions. land was established before it was endowed, and hence, that the possession of an endowment could not possibly have been regarded by the founders of the church, and the framers of its constitution, as essential in order to entitle a minister to exercise all the functions and enjoy all the rights of his sacred office. That the church did, long after the reformation, settle ministers whose stipends were provided and secured precisely in the same way as those of the ministers of modern chapels of ease, and that no difference whatever was made between these ministers and those having public parochial benefices, in regard to sitting in church courts, and taking part in the government of the church,—a statement which Mr. Gray illustrated by a reference to the case The case of of the well-known James Melville, the nephew of the illus- ville trious author of the second book of discipline.*-That the church actually settled ministers in charges where there was no security for a stipend of any kind, and this so frequently and notoriously as to have raised a formal discussion in the assembly of 1565, whether it were lawful for men once ordained to the ministry to leave it, and to follow a secular calling, in consequence of finding themselves without the means of subsistence.-That these things were not done per incuriam, but deliberately and on principle. In proof of this last assertion, Mr. Gray adverted to the judgment pronounced by the assembly of 1600, when the propriety of following this course had been specially considered. "The question being moved, if it be lawful, where congregations * M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. i., p. 327–329. James Mel |