THE GREAT DISRUPTION
Sta,—Mr. Napier Bell's contention that the Disruption might have been avoided if Dr. Chalmers and the majority of the Church of Scotland had been content with the liberty of Presbyteries to examine the life and doctrine of " presentees " does not seem to me convincing or conclusive. The leading case was that of Auchterarder, where three parishioners signed the " call " to Mr. Young, and 286 out of 33o male heads of families signed a document conscientiously protesting against his being ordained as their minister. The leaders of the Church first sought to meet the decision of the Court of Session (1838) and House of Lord, (1839), that the rejection of Mr. Young on account of this " veto" by the congregation was incompetent and illegal, by surrendering the stipend to him while proceeding to appoint another minister to the cure of souls in the parish. But this course proved impossible, for by a second decision (1842) the House of Lords granted a decree requiring the Presbytery to take Mr. Young on trials, and granting him damages in the event of their refusal. " Trials" conducted in such circumstances, with the almost unanimous opposition of the congregation ruled out as irrelevant, would have been an empty form, as well as a surrender of the Church's claim to treat ordination as a spiritual act, within her own sphere, though she was ready, if need be, to surrender the " temporalities " which normally went with it.
Not less important was the decision in the Stewarton case only four months before the Disruption. The Court of Session held by a majority of eight to five that the action of the Church in giving the ministers of 200 new parishes—instituted to meet the needs of a growing population— a place in Presbyteries and Assemblies was illegal. In one sentence of his judgement Lord Justice Clerk Hope summed up the legal view which underlay these various decisions: " The establishment being instituted by the State, the competency of all its acts must be subject to the deter- mination of the supreme court of law." This was a direct denial of the distinction between the spiritual and temporal which was consistently maintained by Chalmers and his colleagues, and which was reaffirmed by the Articles Declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland. These Articles were recognised (not enacted) by Parliament in 1925, and now form part of the foundation of the reunited Church.—Yours, &c.,
Previous page
