Page 3 Advertisements Column 6

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

ercise of their constitutional powers, -voluntarily chose not to go into the examination, but to accept the confession and pass sentence accordingly. By the plain reading of the rule, therefore, the Presbytery is precluded from investigating now what they might have investigated before; and the sentence of suspension passed and suffered, and Mr Scrymgeour being subsequently restored, he is thereby absolved from further liability in connection therewith. This is the legitimate conclusion in the circumstances, which no amount of sophistry can overturn. So anxious were the framers of the law to make the matter plain, that they repeat the same thing in other words : —“ That a question of discipline once disposed of by a Court of final jurisdiction, or by any Court, without regular appeal, complaint, or review', in due time is conclusively and irreversibly determined.” The Committee gave in a report to the Presbytery at a subsequent meeting, intimating that the conclusion they had arrived at was, that there should be no further judicial investigation into the charges brought against Mr Scrymgeour ; that he should not be sent back to St. A udrew’s congregation, and that they should be advised to get a minister from the Home country or elsewhere. The inconsistency and absurdity of such a deliverance is manifest; but the document itself was a remarkable one, and shows how easily in the hands of an unscrupulous partizan a document of such importance may be manipulated so as to misrepresent the views and wishes of honest and unsuspecting persons. It was said to be a unanimous report, but as one and another of the Committee rose to express their dissent, or to qualify their assent, it became very manifest that something more was intended than a simple report. In fact the single sentence in which the Committee’s finding was expressed was so utterly at variance with all that preceded it, that it became evident the writer had used his opportunity for framing a special pleading in behalf of the complainants, and doing his utmost to damage and destroy Mr Sorymgeonr. Besides it seems a farce to call the document read to the Presbytery the report of the Committee. It was not drawn up in their ] resence and clause by clause approved of as their deliverance, but being concocted in a retired country manse, it was only hurriedly read over to the Committee called together for the purpose, half an hour before the Presbytery met, the document itself occupying more than that time in the bare reading of it. It is thus manifest that while the Committee are made responsible for the report due time was not given for its consideration. Parties opposed to it had no opportunity allowed of stating their objections (in fact, only half the members of Committee were present when it was read) and yet it was given in as a unanimous report. The dissimilarity in structure and spirit between the body of the document and its conclusion, suggests that it only expressed the sentiments of the person who drew it up, and the congenial spirits with whom he fraternises in such matters. This report having been laid before the Presbytery it was moved by the Rev. Mr Will that it be adopted ; that at present no further investigation should take place ; and that the request of the congregation in reference to Mr Scrymgeour be refused. Two words (at present) are introdused into this motion which were not in the Committee’s deliverance, the effect of which is to keep indefinitely open what the Committee recommended to be closed. It is to be specially noticed that the decision of the Presbytery included a refusal of the congregation’s request to appoint Mr Scrimgeour to supply the pulpit of St. Andrew’s. Now it happens that the congregation made no such request to the Presbytery. What the Congregation did was to request the l!ev, Mr Stuart, as Moderator of their session, to engage the services of Mr Scrymgeour. This was done in accordance with the regulations of the Synod in regard to vacant congregations, and the matter had no right to come before the Presbytery at all, and would not have been so but for the partisan conduct of Mr Stuart, who, instead of engaging Mr Scrymgeour as requested, and as authorised by the Synod, handed over the request to the Presbytery, who had nothing whatever to do with it. The Presbytery has thus assumed an arbitrary power in dealing with this Congregation directly at variance with Presbyterian principles—the express wishes of the people, when exercising in a respectful and constitutional manner the privileges conferred on them by the Supreme Court, being summarily set aside. The members of Presbytery ought to know that they have uo right to dictate to any Congregation when they should call a minister or whom they should call —perfect freedom of action being a fundamental and essential principle in our Presbyterian polity. The forms of procedure in Church Courts are sometimes spokeu of as necessary to maintain the constitutional standing and rights of all parties. The Presbytery of Dunedin has not been long of discovering how to use these forms, not to protect and foster weak congregations, but to oppress and destroy them. “Perish St. Andrews Congregation ! ” devoutly exclaims Mr Will, “ rather than allow the people to exercise their constitutional privileges.” “We care not what evils betal the Congregation, echoes Mr Gillies. Precious guardians these of the spiritual interests of a people ! Evidently, from the whole course of their words and actions, there exists a conspiracy between three reverend gentlemen to annihilate the Congregation of St. Andrew’s, and "hand over the property and the patronage to their own favorites. What has the Congregation done to deserve such treatment ? They have simply sought to exercise their constitutional rights and spiritual privileges as members of the Presbyterian Church. In this era of the enlightened nineteenth c.utury the reign of clerical ambition and intolerance is not yet over. Thus far as to the attitude of the Presbytery iu regard to the Congregation ; it is necessary, however, also to notice how they have dealt with their unfortunate brother, Mr Scrymgeour. If they have acted unconstitutionally, unjusily, and despotically with the Congregation, they have done so doubly with Mr Scrymgeour. The speeches of the Rev. Messrs Will and Gillies cannot be referred to but in terms of the strongest condemnation. There is some excuse to be found for good men differing in opinion when deciding a difficult or a painful case, but no apology can be framed for Christian Ministers exhibiting so bitter and relentless a spirit as these gentlemen did on that occasion. Anything more unlike the spirit of their Master cannot well be conceived. A sense of public decency might have restrained I them and somewhat moderated their tone ! while discussing this sad case in open court,