a solemn religious act, as the call of the parish, and as the CHAP. VIII. warrant to the presbytery for proceeding with the ordination, -what could have been a greater mockery, or a grosser violation of sacred things? brought out as well as the positive ing in the tion in rethe presen state of feel congrega. ference to tee. There is only one plea that could possibly be urged to The Veto-law lessen the offensiveness of such a proceeding. If there the negative were no opposition to the call, it might be held that silence was to be taken for consent; and on this ground, previous to the passing of the veto-law, calls that were signed scantily enough were occasionally defended even by some of those that were no friends to the policy of moderatism. Even then the ground was narrow and dangerous; but the passing of the veto-law having enabled congregations to bring out the negative as well as the positive state of feeling in reference to the presentee, that ground was no longer available for the vindication of Mr. Young's call to Auchterarder. Finding that they had exhausted the number of callers, the presbytery "then proceeded to afford an opportunity to the male heads of families whose names stand upon the (communion) roll, to give in dissents from the call and settlement of Mr. Robert Young, as minister of the parish." This step in the process formed a striking contrast to the one that went before it; instead of two individuals, nearly the whole congregation were instantly on their feet. Out of 330 persons entitled to exercise the privilege, no The Veto pronounced fewer than 287 came forward to record their names at the by the conpresbytery's table as dissentients against Mr. Young's call gregation. and settlement; and that under the solemn sanction of a declaration which the very fact of their dissenting implied their readiness to take, that they were actuated "by no factious or malicious motive, but solely by a conscientious regard to the spiritual interests of themselves or the congregation." In these circumstances the course of the presbytery could CHAP. VIII. not be otherwise than simple and plain. If that principle 1833. The duty of of non-intrusion which the veto-law was designed to protect the presby. tery in such and enforce, was not to be trampled under foot,—if the a case was plain. presentee was not to be thrust into the church at the expense of driving out the people,-to be clothed with the fleece at the expense of being stripped of the flock,-the presbytery must reject Mr. Young's call, and refuse to proceed with his settlement. Having adjourned for a fortnight, agreeably to one of the provisions of the veto-law, in order that time might be afforded to the dissentients to consider maturely the course they had followed; and finding at the adjourned meeting that they all without one solitary exception adhered to their dissent, the presbytery came to the preliminary decision, that there is "a majority of the persons on the roll still dissenting." The majority in point of fact, amounted to seven-eighths of the whole. Thereupon it was Motion made further moved and seconded, that the presbytery “do take into consideration the call to Mr. Young, presentee to Auchterarder, and do find, that it being signed only by three individuals, and of these only two members of the congregation, that said call is not a good or sufficient call: and do declare that no settlement can take place thereon.” Amendment, To this motion an amendment was moved, that because of to delay, till the appeals certain appeals to the provincial synod taken in the course disposed of, of the foregoing proceedings by the agent for the presentee, rior Church "it was incompetent at this stage of the business" to come to reject Mr. Young. taken were by the supe courts. to a final judgment. The appeals in question had no refe- ment car ried, and the pealed ac case ap cordingly. 1838. disposed of by the synod, the final decision of the case ought CHAP. VIIL to be delayed. The amendment having been carried, the The amendcase went accordingly to the Synod of Perth and Stirling, in the month of April following; where the appeals were dismissed and the case remitted to the presbytery, "to proceed agreeably" to the veto-law. This sentence having been appealed, in its turn, to the general assembly, it was finally decided on the 30th of May, that "the proceedings The decision of the presbytery are not liable to any valid objections, Assembly. and remit to the presbytery to proceed further in the matter in terms of the interim act (the veto-law) of last assembly." of the tence of the of Auchter arder, reject ing Mr. Young. The remaining history of the case, in so far as its career in the church courts is concerned, is soon told. On the 7th of July, the presbytery of Auchterarder met once more in the vacant parish, and with the decision of the general assembly before them for their guidance, did "now reject Final senMr. Young, the presentee to Auchterarder, so far as regards presbytery the particular presentation on their table, and the occasion of this vacancy in the parish of Auchterarder, and do forthwith direct their clerk to give notice of this their determination to the patron, the presentee, and the elders of the parish of Auchterarder." Against this sentence, Mr. Young's agent "protested and appealed to the ensuing synod of Perth and Stirling." That appeal, however, was never followed out, and so far as the church was concerned the case was now at an end. And here the reflection cannot fail to suggest itself, that if the act of 1834 was to be disputed at all, a better case than that of Auchterarder The Auchterfor bringing the real question which that act involved to an issue could not well have arisen. At Auchterarder it was no neck-and-neck race between the callers and the dissentients. It was no case of a parish all but equally divided on the subject of the presentee's gifts. It was not a case arder case well fitted to test the non intrusion principle. |