QUESTIONS respecting terms of COMMUNION.

113

to take higher ground, and to question the lawfulness of Seceders giving any countenance to ministers connected with the Established Church, however pious and eminent they might be. One of the district societies in Edinburgh withdrew from the correspondence of the rest on this ground; and, after some altercation, the matter was referred to the Presbytery. A paper, containing a variety of questions with regard to the terms of ministerial and Christian communion, was presented to them. Of these questions the following is a specimen :"Whether one can make secession from the Established Church, and yet hold communion with those who are her members, whether they be ministers or private Christians ?" "Whether the circumstance of these ministers or Christians being gracious persons did in the least remove the offence taken from their joining with the corrupt Established Church?" "Whether refusing to join in the testimony, if it be a term of communion, is not a reason of secession from such persons ?" The Presbytery, resolving themselves into a committee, took this paper into consideration, but avoided giving definite answers to the questions which it contained. They exhorted the societies in Edinburgh to endeavour to live at peace with one another, and not to attempt fixing the terms of ministerial or Christian communion; and they added, that the Presbytery would turn their attention to this subject as soon as convenient.

This society occasioned the Presbytery some farther trouble, for soon after this period, one of its leaders, a person of the name of Lesly, presented a paper, in which he disowned the civil government of the country, and intimated that it would be his duty, should an occasion present, to rise in arms against it. The Presbytery endeavoured to induce him to retract these sentiments; but finding that he pertinaciously adhered to them, they laid him under the sentence of the lesser excommunication, and warned all the other members of the society to withdraw from him. Several of these, having imbibed similar sentiments, refused to comply, upon which they were suspended from their privileges as members of the church; and, after having harassed the Presbytery, for some time, with representations and petitions, they at length renounced their authority altogether, and formed a party of their own.

The General Assembly, in 1736, had declared it to be a principle of the Scottish church, that no minister shall be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the congregation, and they had enjoined all presbyteries to have a regard to this principle in planting vacant congregations," as they regarded the glory of God, and the edification of the body of

H

Christ." After such a declaration as this, emitted by the supreme court, consistency required that every encouragement should be given by the General Assembly to presbyteries when endeavouring to carry this principle into effect, by preventing the settlement of ministers in opposition to the wishes of the congregation. If any proof were wanting to show, that, notwithstanding the declaration which had been thus made, for the purpose of soothing the irritated feelings of the people, there was no serious intention on the part of those who bore sway in the church to permit such an excellent principle to regulate the conduct of presbyteries; this proof will be found in the proceedings of the Assembly which met in 1737.* This Assembly had under its review no fewer than four cases of contested settlements, and in all of them did they give decisions that were opposed to the principle of non-intrusion. The first case was that of Perth, where the magistrates and a portion of the inhabitants had given a call to Mr. David Black, on the footing of the unpopular act of 1732, which had now been disannulled. Mr. Black's settlement was opposed by the session and a majority of the heads

I am not singular in the opinion, which I have expressed, that the Assembly of 1736 were not sincere in the enactment which they made "against the intrusion of ministers;" and that when they enjoined presbyteries to have regard to it in the planting of vacant congregations, they intended by this nothing more than merely to calm the irritation of the people. A writer of high respectability, whom rone will accuse of being influenced either by hostility or prejudice against the national church, expresses the same opinion. The remarks which he makes (I believe unwittingly), upon the conduct of the Assembly at this time, do not give us a favourable view of its honesty. It tends greatly to strengthen the original grounds of the Secession, when we find such writers, under pretence of apologizing for their church courts, representing them to be so dishonest as to make popular enactments for the purpose of obtaining the good opinion of the people, while they never seriously intended carrying such enactments into effect. The writer, to whom I refer, is the late Sir Henry Moncrieff Wellwood, who, in his Life of Dr. Erskine, mentions the act of 1736 as a highly favourable instance of the wish of the Assembly "to conciliate the spirit of the times." But most unfortunately for the credit of the Assembly who passed this act, the Reverend Baronet, in the comments which he makes, represents it as far from the intention of that venerable body to follow it up by a train of authoritative decisions: he further states, that an influential portion of the Assembly never regarded it in any other light, than as a concession to the prejudices of the people, and had not the most remote idea that it should influence their decisions in particular cases. "It is scarcely conceivable," he says, "that this act could have done more, than soothe the discontent of the people by conciliatory language; unless more could have been attempted than perhaps was practicable; and unless it had been followed up by a train of authoritative decisions, which was far from being intended." "At the same time, it is equally evident, that the members of the church who had been most determined, in disregarding the opposition made to the induction of presentees, if they concurred in this enactment, as they seem to have done, could have intended it as nothing more, than a concession in terminis, to the prejudices of the people, without any view to its influence on their decisions in particular cases, or to such a change of system as could have had any practical effects."- Appendix to Moncrieff's Life of Dr. Erskine, p. 449.

CASE OF THE PARISH OF DEnny.

115

of families, who had given a call to Mr. Henry Lindsay of Bothkennar. The Assembly rejected the call to Mr. Lindsay, and ordered the presbytery of Perth to proceed with Mr. Black's settlement. The second case was that of the parish of Duffus, where one person having received a presentation from the patron, and another person having received a call from a number of the parishioners, the Assembly, forgetting the principle," that no minister shall be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the congregation," decided against the people, and in favour of the patron. They, moreover, ordered their moderator to write a letter to her Grace, the Duchess of Gordon, intimating to her this sentence, and expressing their high respect for herself and her noble family. The third case was that of the parish of Monikie, where the presbytery of Dundee refused to execute a sentence of the Commission, ordering them to proceed with the ordination of Mr. George Johnston as minister of that parish. A complaint being made to the Assembly, they ordered the presbytery forthwith to carry the sentence into effect.

But the case of Denny affords a better illustration than any of the preceding ones, of the total disregard of popular right and popular feeling, which characterized the proceedings of the Assembly at that period. I shall here give, from an authentic source, a detailed account of this case, not so much on account of there being any thing extraordinary connected with it, as because it furnishes a fair specimen of the treatment which the people received from their ecclesiastical rulers in a great variety of instances, and also shows us what necessity there was for the Secession taking place at the time it did, that relief might be afforded to those who were groaning under such oppressive treatment.

The parish of Denny having become vacant by the death of their pastor, a presentation was given to Mr. James Stirling; and the Laird of Herbertshire, who appears to have acted as patron on behalf of the crown, caused intimation to be made to the moderator of the presbytery of Stirling, that a presentation had been given and accepted, and requested that the presbytery would take the presentee on trials for ordination. The parishioners opposed this summary mode of proceeding, and petitioned that a moderation might be granted for the people at large, without any reference to the presentation given. From the presbytery the matter was carried to the synod of Perth and Stirling, who found that the presentation was null and void, on account of its not having been presented to any judicatory in due time, by any person having a commission from his Majesty for that purpose; and it was finally agreed, among all the parties concerned, that, the presentation

being laid aside, a call should be moderated in the kirk of Denny. On the day of moderation, the former presentee was proposed on the part of the patron, and another candidate was proposed on the part of the people; and the roll of voters being called, few or none of the heads of families voted for the patron's candidate. Of the heritors, fifty-two gave him their support, and of these the greater part were either nonresidenters, or not in the communion of the church; while for the popular candidate, there were seventy-four heritors, the whole of the session, and one hundred and thirty-eight heads of families. Though the voice of the parish was thus most unequivocally expressed against the presentee, and though the call given to the nominee of the people was, with the exception of the heritors mentioned, almost unanimous, yet the two ministers who conducted the moderation, refused to attest the call; they referred it to the presbytery; and the presbytery, without judging in it, referred it to the synod. The synod, after hearing all the parties, gave a decision, by a large majority, in favour of the parishioners, and ordered the presbytery to proceed with the settlement of the person whom they had called. Against this decision, the friends of the presentee protested, and carried the cause by appeal before the supreme court. The Assembly, either finding the business to be a troublesome one, or not having sufficient leisure to attend to it, remitted the settlement of it to their Commission. The Commission, always having on hand a superabundant supply of questions of this kind to occupy their attention, delayed the consideration of the Denny case till the next meeting of Assembly, during which time the people were obliged to exercise their patience. The Assembly at length gave the case a hearing; but instead of giving judgment, they again remitted it to the Commission. The Commission, after making several unsuccessful attempts to effect a reconciliation betwixt the parties, thought proper, at the close of one of their meetings, when the greater part of their members had gone away, and when there was scarcely, a quorum of their number present, to reverse the sentence of the synod, and order the settlement of the presentee to take place.

Against this sentence, the people, of course, reclaimed, and once more appeared at the bar of the Assembly, complaining of the injustice that had been done them. Their complaint was disregarded. The sentence of the Commission was affirmed, and the presbytery of Stirling was enjoined to take the necessary steps for ordaining the intruder. Yet, with singular inconsistency, the same Assembly, on the following day, agreed to an act, in which they declared, as if in mockery of

CASE OF THE PARISH OF DENNY.

117

their own proceedings, "that it is, and has been since the Reformation, the principle of this church, that no minister shall be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the congregation."

The business, however, did not stop here. The presbytery, as well as the people, proved refractory; and, like conscientious men, they refused to execute a sentence which was opposed both to Scripture and to an avowed principle of their own church. This refusal, on the part of the presbytery, occasioned another complaint to be made to the Assembly by the presentee's friends. This venerable court, much more anxious to support their own dignity, than to do what they themselves had declared was "for the glory of God, and the edification of the body of Christ," were indignant that any inferior judicatory should presume to dispute their authority, even in a matter where conscience was concerned. They appointed a committee of twenty-one members to prepare an overture on this whole affair. At a subsequent sederunt, an overture, couched in strong language, was brought in, and approved of by a vote. It declared the dissatisfaction of the Assembly with the conduct of the presbytery, in neglecting or refusing to fulfil the appointment of the Assembly 1736; it enjoined the presbytery to proceed immediately with the trials. of Mr. Stirling, and to have the whole finished before the 1st of September next, as they should be answerable to the next Assembly; and, lest the presbytery should still prove contumacious, the synod of Perth and Stirling were ordered to take him upon trials, and to proceed, so as to have the settlement completed before the 1st of March; and it was declared not to be lawful for them to put any question whether they would obey the appointment or not, but any ten or more of them might proceed to ordain Mr. Stirling, even though all the rest of their brethren should be opposed to the execution of the act. It was further provided by the overture, that "in case the synod, or such number of them as above-mentioned, shall not, before the 1st of November next, enter upon trials the said Mr. Stirling, or before the 1st of March next finish the same, the Assembly empower a special Commission of this General Assembly, to convene at Edinburgh, in the Old Kirk Aisle, on the third Wednesday of November or March respectively, with power to adjourn themselves as they shall think fit, in order to take trials, and ordain Mr. Stirling as minister of Denny."

Such was the overture which the venerable Assembly adopted for maintaining the authority of the supreme court, and

*Acts of Assembly 1737.