MR SCRYMGEOUR'S CASE.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2158, 6 April 1870, Page 2

MR SCRYMGEOUR'S CASE.

To the Editor of the Evening Star. Sir —Yesterday the congregation received official intimation of the decision of the Presbytery in the above matter, and it only confirmed the report that had been circulated previously—viz., that “ Mr Scrymgeour was not to be allowed to preach in St. Andrew’s Church.” Now, sir, I think the Presbytery has gone somewhat out of its way, for the purpose of snubbing the congregation. I don’t profess to be conversant with Presbyterian forms of procedure, but, as I think, the case stands thus :—At a late congregational meeting, a large majority of the congregation passed a resolution to the effect, “that the congregation take the matter of ‘ pulpit supply ’ into their own hands a resolution which was perfectly in order with the rules of the Church. That resolution went before the Presbytery, and all they had to do was simply to grant the request or not It is true that at the same meeting another resolution was also carried by a veiy large majority, to the effect “ that the services of Mr Scrymgeour be retained for a further period but I hold that the Presbytery had nothing whatever to do with the latter resolution. I maintain they had no right to ask, “supposing that we do grant you your request, whose services are you going to secure.” The latter resolution, in my opinion, was simply an expression of the wish of the congregation to the Kirk Session as to engaging Mr Scrimgeour, in the event of tbo prayer of the first resolution being granted by the Presbytery. I may be wrong, but I have a very strong conviction, that had wo fixed upon any other minister, we should have had our request granted without hesitation. But even supposing I am wrong in my views, in

the above, and supposing the .Presbytery had the right to know whom we were going to engage, I should like to know if the congregation are going to submit quietly to the Presbytery in this matter ? The reverend gentleman who preached yesterday foreneon told us pretty plainly that, personally, he was very sorry at the decision of the Pres-byte-y, thereby plainly implying that he was one of the minority, but stated that it was the duty of the minority to give in to the majority. Exactly so ; but is there one rule in the Presbytery'and another out of it. ? If the majority' carry the day in the Presbytery, why not in the congregation? “It is not for the interests of the congregation that we should do what you ask,” say the Presbytery. A curious reason, truly! Is it likely to further the interests of the congregation, or to make peace within its bounds, to flatly refuse what they most earnestly desire ? Is it likely to promote harmony in our church, to show such a decided bias in favor of a minority; or is it likely to strengthen the congregation, to inflict on it the same treatment it had some months ago, when it was almost literally preached vacant ? The Presbytery may think so ; but very few sensible, unprejudiced individuals, will agree with them. I would earnestly entreat the congregation to take a decided stand, and let the Presbytery know, in a manner which even they cannot mistake, that it will not be trampled npon with impunity ; nor is it safe for the Presbytery to treat them as they seem bent on doing. —I am, &c., S.W. Dunedin, April 4th, 1870.