Faults and failures of the late Presbyterian union in Canada

Recent events have led to warm discussions as to the powers of Local Legislatures in this country, and as to the constitutional position they occupy.It was scarcely to be expected that the great change effected by the confederation of the Provinces could be accomplished without doubts arising as to the limits of the powers and duties of the Federal Parliament and the Local Legislatures.Hence, whatever the political result of the present discussions, there seems to be little doubt that light will be thrown on such points, and that the boundaries and limits of the powers of these legislative bodies will, in course of time, be marked out and established.The political bearings of the question I have no intention to examine.But in connection with important Trusts and Trust properties, with which Local Legislatures believe themselves empowered to deal, under the clause of the British North America Act assigning to them a jurisdiction over property and civil rights, there have arisen many difficulties.The Temporalities' Fund of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, is one of the Trusts dealt with by the Local Legislatures, on what I conceive to be a mistaken idea of their powers.For the sake of clearness it may be well, before showing the origin of the Fund, to give a brief statement of the relation to it of the various ecclesiastical bodies to which the residue of the Fund (if there be any) has been assigned, on the sole ground, apparently, that they are all Presbyterians and that a majority has so willed it, although that majority never had any claim on the Fund, and one portion of these bodies distinctly laid it down as a principle that it would not accept aid from the State directly or indirectly.These bodies, in common with the Church of Scotland, having one general mode of Church government, through various Church Courts, but with no recognized permanent, personal, ecclesiastical head, such as a bishop, are known as PresbyterianChurches.It is a popular, but erroneous, belief that the title Presbyterian indicates a given set of doctrines or a distinct creed.It, on the contrary, refers simply and solely to the form of Church government, as Lpiscopal describes one differently constituted.In the one case the Church is ruled by presbyters, pastors of parishes or congregations, as the case may be, all of equal rank, presided over at their meetings by a chairman, or Moderator, chosen from among themselves and invested with no higher rank, on that score, beyond the time during which he presides, that being, in the case of the Moderator of General Assembly or other supreme ecclesiastical court, usually for a year.With them are associated ruling elders (ordained from the laymen), in the sittings of Presby- tery, Synod and General Assembly.In the other case the Church is ruled by bishops and archbishops, with, in the case of the Roman and Greek Churches, a supreme bishop, styled in. the one, Pope, in the other, Patriarch.fered in no respect from the claims of the Church of Rome, to decide that everything ecclesiastical was necessarily spiritual and that it was for the Church to decide in all cases.I can understand, though I cannot sympathise with, the claims of the Church of Rome.I can neither understand nor sympathise with the claims of the Free Church, which attempts to set up an ecclesiastical supremacy for itself, whilst denouncing in the most bitter and unmeasured terms the same assumptions on the part of another.This was the view taken by Sir James Graham in reference to the " Claim of Rights," which, he said, demanded that all the proceedings of the Church, whether legislative or judicial, should be beyond the cognizance of the courts of law, which should have no power to determine whether matters brought before them were within the scope of their authority, if, in the opinion of the Church, these matters involved any spiritual consideration, and that neither sentences of courts nor decrees of the House of Lords should be effectual if they interfered with the rights and privileges of the Church, of which interference, and of which spiritual considerations the Church itself was to be the exclusive judge.Earl, then Lord John, Russell, concurred in this view, as did other statesmen on both sides of politics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.