The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-17 00:00:00

THE CLERGY AND NEGRO DR. GILLESPIE AND THE VETO.
SLAVERY.

Dr. Gillespie, the successor of the celebrated
Latin scholar, Dr. Hunter, forTmany years Pro-
fessor of Humanity in the University of St. An-
drew's, has addressed the following letter to the
Fifeshire Journal. It affords another proof, in
addition to many we have already given, that the
Scotch people, clergymen as well as laymen, are
beginning to take a rational view of the Anti-pa-
tronage question, and to admit that the laws of
the country must not be trampled upon under
the fanatical pretence that they are contrary to
the laws of Christ. Dr. Gillespie voted with
Lord -Aloncrieff, Dr. Chalmers, and the party
who carried the Veto law, which, as we foretold,
has turned out no law ; and having seen, and
experienced, too, the mischief which the Non -
intrusionists have done to the beautiful fabric of
the Presbyterian Church, he has prudently made
his escape from the fire-brands. Would he not
have shown more courage, and more wisdom, and
more faithful attachment, too, to the "Church
of his fathers, whose bread lie had bro-
ken,"—if, instead of declining, he had so-
licited again a seat in the General As-
sembly, in order to point out in his elo-
quent strains the dangers which Chalmers and
his mushroom proselytes have brought upon a
Church so long celebrated for the purity ofits doc-
trines, the exemplary character of the clergy,
and the industrious and moral conduct of the
people educated under their charge ? A speech
of his in the General Assembly would have been
of more avail than ten thousand letters like that
addressed to a local paper. We are glad, how-
ever, to see symptoms of repentance, and have,
therefore, great pleasure in publishing the
letter :
From the notice of my sentiments respecting the
General Assembly taken in the Town Council of St. An-
drew's, and published in your paper of last week, as
well as from sonic observations upon the same subject made
in the Herald of the same date, it appears to me, that,
considering the interest which, for some years, I have
taken in the question of Church Patronage in particular,
some explanation may be necessary to prevent mistakes
injurious to my character on the score of consistency. I
will therefore state shortly, I hope, but freely and f,ankly,
and without any reservation or disguise, the circumstances
which have induced me, under the present attitude which
the Church preserves in regard to the civil power, to re-
f, aia from soliciting the patronage of my kind and in-
dulgent friends of the Town Council of St. Andrew's on
the present occasion.
I was early in life struck with some of the evils of Pa-
tronage as it was then exhibited, and my intercourse with
Churchmen afterwards did not tend to weaken this im-
pression ; and so soon as, in the year 1814, I came to have
a vote, and ultimately (after a noviciate of some 10 or 12
years) a voice in the General Assembly, I uniformly di-
vided on the Anti-Patronage side. Accordingly, in 1833
and 1834, I both voted and spoke in favour—first df 1)r.
Chalmers', and lately of Lord Moncrieff's Bill—the now
notorious veto law. But I openly declared, that, whilst I
hoped the very best results from it, I was not qui,e sure
that it did not run some risk of being resisted by the
patrons as trenching on their civil rights, as the law of
the land then stood, and still, very unfortunately, stands.
In the eerlier enforcements of the veto law I took an
interest, and gave several votes at least, in order to ob-
tain for the new regulation a fair trial ; and even when,
last year, I saw that the Assembly were decidedly
wrong in resisting tls e civil power, I still voted
with the majority on this question—being unwilling
that the Church of my Fathers, whose bread I had
broken, and whose peaceful and honourable shelter I and
my family had shared, should be trodden down, as it were,
by the rampant foot of the civil authority—convinced as I
then was, from what I was induced to consider good autho
rity, that the civil power was about to GIVE WAY, and that
a Bill was on the eve of being brought into Parliament to
legalise the veto law, or even to secure something prefer-
able (which was exceedingly desirable) for the good of
the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Under this impres-
sion and belief—though greatly, as is known to the first
minister of Cupar against my will—l countenanced and
attended an Anti-Patronage Meeting the winter before
last, in St. Andrews: but upon the express condition that
the motion wich I agreed to make should not contain one
worst commendatory of the conduct of the General Assem-
bly, but simply a strong appeal to Government to alter the
law of Patronage as it then stood, and still stands. I can
appeal to the crowded audience whom I shortly ad-
dressed, as well as to the county newspapers of the day
which published the petition to Government, fur the truth
of my statement.
Observing, however, as time and experience, the great
and the safe teachers, unveiled the true position in which
the Church stood, as well as the fallacy of the " day
dreams" in which many had been indulging, I found that
I could not, as a Scotehman, as a citizen of a great and
loyal community, set myself, as a Churchman and Pres-
byterian, in opposition to the known and repeatedly-de-
clared and acted upon law of the land. I saw, and still
FCC, no safety for the Church, but much and inevitable
danger and ruin, in her onward course ; and, in conse-
quence, have firmly resolved that, from henceforth, I will
wash my hands of the business ; and yet I would not
choose, nor could I well be expected, to oppose the
friends with whom I have all along acted, and who, I am
certain, arc proceeding (however, its my opinion, inju-
diciously) on the purest and most commendable mctives.
These are the plain facts of the case ; and although I
am as anxious as ever for the total abolition of Patronage,
yet I would Ilse to know previously what is meant to be
substituted in its stead ; for I am equally and even more
averse t, the turbulence and prejudices of a mere mob of
electors, as I am to the reckless and overbearing induction
which may take place under existing Patronage. I printed
a little pamphlet some years ago on this subject, and
which was partially circulated amongst the members of
Assembly, in which I proposed a scheme of my own, based
principally on the elders of the Kirk •scssions—chosen not
as at present by the arbitrary will of the clergyman, but by
the heads of families in communion with the Church, being
bound either to present these heads of families with a
limited choice, or with such a person as they know will be
generally acceptable. Till some such scheme to prevent
turbulence and schism on the one hand, as well as violent
settlements on the ether, be presented to me, I can have
no part in those efforts which are now so ostentatiously and
prematurely making for the total abolition of Patronage.
1 am yours, &c.,
THOMAS GILLESPIE, Professor of Humanity.
St. Andrews, March 29.