Page 3 Advertisements Column 5

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2159, 7 April 1870, Page 3

Public Notices. gT. ANDREW'S CONGREGATION. TO THE PRESBYTERIANS OF OTAGO. The questions that have arisen in connection with this Congregation are so varied and so intricate, that many of the Presbyterian people who tal-re an interest in ecclesiastical matters are apt to lose sight of the principles involved, and also to become weary of the seemingly endless strife. It is of importance, however that the Presbyterians of Dunedin, and the Province generally, should be able clearly to apprehend that the matters now agitated affect not only one congregation, but may soon d’sturb the peace of many others. Believing that the Presbyterian Church is suffering great damage by the course pursued in regard to this Cougregai ion, it is necessary to keep the facts of the case prominently before the Church, so that every intelligent observer may be enabled to form a just conclusion on the various points involved, and the conduct of the different parties in this case. The regulations of the Church Extension Committee adopted by last Synod in reference to tbe supply of vacant congregations are as follow : “That all the probationers or unattached ministers who are in the regular employment of the Church, under the sanction of the Synod, be under the control of the Committee, and that the Committee have full power to send them to supply such vacant charges and stations as they may judge best to promote the good of the Church. . . . Provided always that if . . any Congregation through the minister who has the Presbyterial oversight of such Congregation intimate to the Committee that they are desirous to make provision for ministerial supplies for such Congregation for a specific time, independently of the Committee, or if any Congregation shall agree to find full supply for themselves, the Committee shall refrain from sending any probationers to such Congregation till otherwise advised.” In accordance with this regulation, the Congregation of St. Andrew’s Church, at a meeting In Id on 28th February, adopted the following resolutions : “ Ist. That the Congregation agree, in terms of the Church Extension Committee Regulations No. 1, to find full ministerial supply for themselves, and request the Moderator to intimate the same to the Committee. “2nd. That the Congregation agree that the services of the Rev. Mr Scrymgeour be engaged for that purpose, aud request the Moderator to carry this resolution into effect at his earliest convenience.” These resolutions were ojiposed in the meeting by Messrs Cargill and Reynolds, who pressed the Congregation to give Mr Scrymgeour up and try to get another. After discussion they were outvoted by a very large majority. Immediately thereafter they came before the Presbytery to prosecute Mr Scrymgeour, for the sole purpose of preventing him from occupying the pulpit of r-t. Andrew’s Church. It thus appears that it is altogether a vindictive proceeding on their part. They have no objection that Mr Scrymgeour should retain his status, and be a minister to any other Congregation, but in St. Andrew’s they won’t allow him to be. They thus virtually assert their claim to be the patrons of that Church, and to put in or keep out whom they please. It is to be hoped that Church Courts will be very cautious in encouraging any men to assume such a position aud establish such'a claim. We all know the evils that patronage wrought in the Church at Home, and any attempt to subordinate the Christian rights of a Congregation to the will of a few of its wealthier members must meet with determined resistance. If zeal for the purity of the Church or the Ministry were the actuating motive with these men, they would be entitled to respect and consideration ; but when they themselves proclaim their willingness that Mr Scrymgeour should be appointed to a charge elsewhere, it is manifestly not duty to the Church, hut personal feeling that prompts their whole actions. It is known to all that this matter was formerly betore the Presbytery, coming up in consequence of certain rumors affecting the ministerial character of Mr Scrymgeour, aud that on that occasion, after a lengthened conference, the Presbytery received Mr Serymgeour’s confession, and suspended him from the ministry for six months. These six mouths having expired, the Presbytery removed the sentence, and restored Mr Scrymgeour to the Ministry. By this movement of Messrs Cargill aud Reynolds, they virtually arraign the whole previous action of the Presbytery, and require tbe case to be taken up dc novo. It was argued by members of the court that these charges were involved in his former confessions, and formed part and parcel of the “sins and irregularities” lor which he was suspended. The complainants urged that these rumors, although known, not having been investigated, it was competent to take them up still. A vote being taken, the court was equally divided, aud by the casting vote of the Moderator (the Rev. George Sutherland), it was decided that the charges now made were not covered by the previous confession, and a committee was appointed to hear the complainants, and report to the Presbytery whether those charges called for further investigation. It is only" necessary to look at the law which regulates the proceedings in such cases to see whether this course of procedure is competent and equitable- The rule is in these words :—“No case of discipline upon which a final decision has once been pr nouneed in regular form by a competent Church Court can be renewed again by any process, unless it can be shown that new grounds of action have arisen which were not before that Court.” In pressing the Presbytery to re-open this case judicially the complainants shelter themselves under the last clause of this rule, alleging that because the Presbytery on the former occasion waived their right of examination into the rumors and charges then under notice, therefore the same charges, repeated more specifically now, constitute “new grounds of action. ” The fallacy of such a plea is manifest to every unprejudiced mind. With the exception of one ti itiiug affair, involving no ecclesiastical offence, all these so-called “ new ” charges were mixed up aud involved in the rumors with which the Presbytery dealt judicially. The leading members of that Court were perfectly cognisant of the existence of these rumors; aud if the particulars as now given did not come before them, it was simply because they, in the ox-