CLERICAL INTOLERANCE.

Evening Star, Issue 4120, 11 May 1876, Page 4

CLERICAL INTOLERANCE.

{From the Southland Times.)

Recent Victorian papers contain Several references to a case still pending and just about to be decided finally, which is under all the circumstances the most remarkable instance of ecclesiastical oppression we have heard of in any of the Australasian Colonies during the last quarter of a century.

About twenty-eight years ago the Rev. R. K. Ewing, then not long out from Scotland, and quite a young man, " accepted a call " to become the Presbyterian Minister of the church at Iminceston in Tasmania. To the lay •view he would seem to have been a singularly eligible Christian Minister. His piety, orthodoxy, and sincerity to the present day have never been questioned by his enemies. In education and manners a scholar and gentleman even among the ministers of a church by no means

wanting in those qualities, and an effective preacher, for he is a much finer elocutionist than the greatly vaunted Mr Charles Clark, one would have thought that here was a man who ■would be a valuable acquisition to any church. And so the majority of Mr Ewing's congregation, and of the Tasmanian Presbytery, thought to the last. But to some of the more narrowminded it was a serious objection that Mr Ewing's views of life and of duty were not narrow. It began after a time to be whispered that he had actually been at the Theatre three or four times, and that he had taken lessons in elocu-

tion of Mr G. V. Brooke, the actor. These frightful charges were true. It was not quite equally true, as was asserted, that he had paid special attentions to Madame Anna Bishop, though undoubtedly it was the fact that through his exertions the great vocalist had consented to sing at a concert for the benefit of the local Athenaeum, and that Mi Ewing had really handed her on to the platform. A darker and more spiteful slander was circulated that the lady ■whom he had undoubtedly married was not legally his wife. It was Mr Ewing's misfortune, though not his fault, that that was so. It was not until some time after his marriage to his first wife that he discovered that she had already a husband living, and as soon as the discovery was made, he took the proper and honorable course of separating from

her, and did not marry again until some time after her death. These circumstances are unquestioned, but they■were sufficient to inspire a number of those narrow-minded souls who delight in dragging down better and abler men than themselves. A public inquiry ■was made by the Presbytery of Tasmania, and Mr Ewing was honorably and fully acquitted. He continued in charge of his Tastnanian congregation for a considerable time, and left it for the benefit of his health in 18G8, after having acted as minister for twenty years, with the highest testimonials that any minister could well receive from his Presbytery, his congregcttion, the teachers in his Sunday school?, and from his townsmen.

The same year he landed in Victoria, and as there was no charge open for him, and he was not indeed in sufficiently good health to act as a settled clergyman, he took the appointment of Principal of the Presbyterian College at South Yarra, near Melbourne, frequently preaching at various churches by invitation, and also taking bis seat as an elder of the church at the General Assembly. His misfortunes, however, had not ended. His eyesight began to fail, and he thought it his duty to resign his collegiate appointment, and went up the country to recruit his strength. On the northern slopes of the Australian Alps the keen air of Morse's Creek

■where lie was now staying, gradually restored his health, but in the meantime he had committed another awful offence against the dignity of a Presbyterian minister, and given another chance to his enemies. Not being a man of property, and not being connected wish any particular church, he acted for a time as a paid director of a mining company. This was the last but one of the offences with which he was charged. And here we may remark that it may be very wrong for a clergymen to make money by a secular calling, but if Mr Ewing erred in this respect, he did so in the very good company of St. Peter, St. James, St. John, and St. Paul. Be that as it may, after all these things had happened and were well known, he was still recognised as an unattached minister of the church and a most exemp. lary elder, inasmuch as, in addition to his services at other churches, he Avas at this very time requested by the very cream of the cream of the General As-

sembly, the Secretary of the Presbyterian Star Chamber of Victoiia, the Home Mission Committee, to preach at various places indicated, vVill it be believed that after all this happened, when less than two months later, Mr Bwing was called to act as minister of the Presbyterian Church of Beechworth, and was duly inducted by the Presbytery unanimously, notwith Standing the fact that both Presbytery aud congregation were completely satisfied with him, that the cougregatiou increased largely, and the church was in a more flourishing state than it had ever been before, no sooner had he presented himself as a minister of the church at the meetiug of the General Assembly at Melbourne, than he was refused admittance, his status as a Christian minister impugned, and the privileges of the J

lowest felon tried in the law of being . told the nature of his offence, of being confronted with his accusers, and of being allowed to speak in his own defence, were all denied him ? Such was the fact. The alleged ground of this extraordinary conduct was that he ought to have taken a course not recognised either in 'the Presbyterian Church in Scotland or in that of Tasmania, and that prior to his induction he should have got the consent of this illegally constituted Home Mission Committee, sitting with closed doors, and not bound to allege any reasons for ruining any Christian minister- for life. A minority in the Assembly, consisting of some of the ablest and best ministers in the colony, especially the Rev. Messrs Robertson of "West Melbourne, Nish of Sandhurst, and M'Millan of Hamilton, made a manly and honorable fight in behalf of fair play; but they were overborne by the majority. This, however, was not all. As the Beechworth congregation and Presbytery still believed in Mr Ewing, the Assembly were in a fix, being unable by the laws of the church to appoint a successor without the consent of the Beechworth church. Accordingly two of their number were sent up to diplomatise with the members, some of whom at last gave way, on being given to understand that if Mr Ewing would submit the case to a commission to be appointed by the

Assembly, he would be recoguised. In an evil hour he and his friends submitted. A commission was appointed with apparent fairness, as being composed of friends and foes, but so as to have just a bare majority for his accusers. Accordingly, by the casting vote of the chairman, it was decided that it was not desirable to grant Mr Ewing's application. So_the matter rests at present. An appeal from this decision—which we reprint—has been made by the minority to the sitting of the commission of triers to be held this month, but there is not much doubt as to what that decision will be.

The following are the reasons for which the dissent and appeal havo been taken in the case of the Rev. li. K. Ewing :—" 1. Becaxise, while there are conceivable circumstances in which, it may be warrantable to reject an applicant on the simple ground ' that it is not desirable to grant his application,' the publicity given to this application, combined with various other corelevant circumstances, imperatively call for a definite and explicit statement of the reasons on which the resolution to reject it is based. 2. Because, so far as it is known to the appellants or has been stated to the commission, the occurrences connected with ' the history of Mr Ewing ' referred to in the decision, were all but exclusively embraced within a period extending from 1848 to 1868. 3. Because it is contrary to the Statutes of Limitation, which form a fun-

damental principle of all judicial procedure, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to take cognisance of matters so remote, and still more to review and virtually reverse under such circumstances the decision of an independent ecclesiastical judicatory. 4. Because the censure thus cast on the procedure of the Presbytery of Tasmania (whose certificate in favor of Mr Ewing is so full and unqualified) is specially indefensible, inasmuch as they had materials for arriving at an equitable and unbiissed decision on the various matters on which they were called to adjudicate, that have not been possessed and could not be obtained by this commission. (Signed) James Nisk, R. T. Walker, W. G. Fraser, James Bennie." The Rev. James JSish, of Sandhurst, is reputed to be the best church lawyer in the Assembly, the Rev. R. T. Walker was Moderator of the Assembly last year, the Rev. W. G. Fraser is Minister of Essendon, and Mr James Bennie, of Melbourne, is a well-known lay elder.