TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Tsui case of the Nonintrusion clergy of the Church of Scotland has been ably and temperately stated in the House of Commons. But it is only a real and heavy grievance that is made more im- pressive by candid and clear exposition. The Legislature is called upon to interfere because the spiritual independence of the Church of Scotland is said to have been en- croached upon by the Scotch Law Courts. The spiritual inde- pendence of the Church is said to have been encroached upon because the Law Courts have disregarded the Veto-law enacted by the General Assembly, and exercised jurisdiction in cases of patronage.
First of the last. It is not denied that the law of Scotland re- cognizes the right of patrons to present to vacant benefices. Mr. Fox MAULS not only admits this, but declares that be for his own part does not wish the abolition of patronage, and that he believes the Nonintrusionists will be satisfied with concessions short of the abolition of patronage. Patronage, therefore, being al- lowed to be legal, is the title to present to benefices a civil or a spiritual right ? Here, apparently, there is no difficulty. The patron does not claim a right to confer the priestly or clerical cha- racter: he must select the presentee from among those whom the Church has already licensed to exercise the functions of the ministry. The patron does not claim any power to control the presentee in the discharge of his spiritual duties after he has been inducted : the parish clergyman is as independent of his patron in all spiritual matters as he is of the poorest beg- gar in his parish. The Church of Scotland is in all spirit- ual matters perfectly independent ; no one can exercise the clerical functions unless licensed to do so by the Church ; its clergy are free and uncontrolled in the exercise of discipline over their congregations. The power of the patron goes no further than this—In each parish, provision is made for the maintenance of a clergyman : the patron is by the law of Scotland authorized to se- lect from among the clergy of the Church the individual upon whom he wishes to confer this temporal provision for subsistence : if he present a person incompetent in point of talent or objection- able in point of character, the parish may complain, the Church Courts will refuse to sanction the appointment, and the Civil Law Courts will support them in their refusal. The rights claimed by the patron do not in the remotest degree trench upon the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church. He must choose a licentiate of the Church ; he must choose one who has been unexceptionable in his conduct since licensed ; he can exercise no control over him as minister : he can only say, "This is the man upon whom I choose to bestow the temporal emolument of the parochial charge." The right of the patron is a right to confer a certain annual income : it is a civil or temporal right, and as such falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Law Courts. Good or bad, patronage is the law of the land ; it is a civil right ; and the spiritual independence of the Church is in no way affected by the Civil Court deciding in ques- tions of the temporality. Next, as to the Veto-law. It is acknowledged by Mr. MAELE, and, according to him, by a majority of the Nonintrusionists, that the exercise of patronage may continue without bringing the Church of Scotland into spiritual bondage. The Veto-law, they say, was not intended to abolish patronage, but to prevent its abuse. How stands the case ? The right of the congregation to oppose the settlement of an immoral or incompetent presentee is recognized by the law and supported by the Courts. The Veto- law, by declaring that the congregation was entitled to oppose the settlement of any presentee, without assigning reasons—without denying that he was morally and intellectually competent to under- take the charge—went to render the patron's right an empty name. Had the Law Courts declared the Veto-law to be binding, patronage would have been de facto abolished. In passing the Veto-law, the General Assembly took upon it to repeal an act of Parliament. In denying the competency of the Civil Law Courts to adjudicate in cases of patronage, the Church claimed a right of independent jurisdiction ; but in passing the Veto-law, the General Assembly went further, and claimed an authority to legislate independently of the State. It is quite true, what the champions of the Non- intrusion party say, that the Church was a church before it was recognized by the State ; but the Church's endowments, its tem- poralities, it holds of the State, and must either continue to hold them on the terms on which they were bestowed, or obtain the consent of the State to their alteration, or give them up. It is contrary to all equity for one of two parties to a compact to alter the terms of the bargain without the consent of the other. The Church accepted from the State a provision for the support of a minister in each parish; the Church consented that patrons should have the right to select from among its licentiates the indi- viduals who were to enjoy these benefices, with this restriction, that they should not have the power to force immoral or incompetent persons upon congregations : the Church acts dishonestly when it attempts on the one hand to retain the endowments, and on the other to shuffle out of its agreement ,o leave the selection of parish- m. misters to the patrons ; and the Church has exceeded its powers in taking upon it to repeal the Parliamentary statutes by which it holds its temporalities.
The only question that remains is—Ought Parliament to inter- fere in the matter ? Upon the decision of this question the con-
duct of the Nonintrusion party ought to have no influence. Let their conduct have been right or wrong, Parliament ought to act according to the merits and necessity of the case. But, in the first place, for parties who are willing to submit to modified patron- age, it really does not appear that patronage is such a terrible grievance in the form in which it at present exists in Scotland. The patron must nominate a licentiate'of the Church; must with- draw him if any valid objection can be made to the nomination ; and has no power over the minister he introduces. It will be said, though this may be true, the people object to patronage, and will not be quiet till it be abolished. Where is the proof of this ? How many elections have been decided in Scotland by the Church question ? Mr. Fox MAIILE himself is not prepared to go the length of abolishing patronage. Besides, it remains to be proved that the polemics of Scotland would be a whit more quiet than they are at present were patronage abolished tomorrow. Let us suppose the right of presentation to benefices taken from patrons : it must be given to some one else—to the Church Courts, or to the Congrega- tions. If to the former, we should have in the course of six months as violent an agitation for the free choice of Congregations as we have had for the Veto-law. If to the latter, the clergymen would soon find the congregations much more exacting taskmasters than the patrons. The opinion of the majority in the General Assembly has changed before on the subject of patronage, and may again. It was against patronage at the time of the Revolution ; it was hollow in favour of patronage when the Secession Church hived off from it ; and it is now against patronage once more. Admitting the justice of all that can be said against patronage, is the legislation to be altered with every changing vote of the General Assembly ? Would such a course give peace or quiet to Scotland ? An act of Parliament cannot put an end to the patronage controversy : it could only make the supporters of patronage the agitators instead of its opponents. The question now discussed with such astonish- ing emphasis in that country cannot be settled by legislative in- terference. The disputants can settle the matter, if they choose, without the aid of Parliament. Up to the middle of last century there was one Presbyterian Church in Scotland, with two parties—one which held patronage to be incompatible with the spiritual independence of the Church, and one which did not. About the time alluded to, the former party left the Esta- blished Church, and formed the Secession Church; the latter remained in their benefices. Since that event, there have been two Presbyterian Churches in Scotland—the Established Church with patronage, the Secession Church without it. In their doc- trinal views, and in their exercise of discipline, these two churches are quite agreed ; patronage is the distinctive mark between them: let the opponents of patronage (and Nonintrusion, with those who understand what they are asking, means opposition to patronage) join the Secession Church, and let those who have no objection to the restricted and guarded patronage recognized by law in Scotland retain their benefices.
Previous page
