The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-11-13 00:00:00

PRESBYTERY OF PAISLEY.

CASE (IF R EV. bin. RREWSTER.—The presbytery met on
Wednesday week, in the usual place, at eleven o'clock. Mr.
Mactiair, in the absence of the moderator, took the chair.
Dr. Burns having, at the opening of the meeting, intimated
his intention of railing the attention of the presbytery to the
conduct of ane of their number, in regard to the late visit of MT.
Daniel O'Connell to Glasgow, stated the reasons why he did so.
We are a protestant and presbvterian church, and have been
established by the laws of the land. Every minister at his or-
dination is bound by solemn vows to support the church, and to
do nothing, " dii eelly or indirectl3," which might tend to in-
jure or to overthrow her institutions. Mr. O'Connell, whom
he would nut characterise as an " illustrious," but rather as a
" notorious," individual, is the avowed, accredited, and paid
agent of the popish faction in Ireland, and in this country, whose
ceaseless object is to overthrow the protestant church of-Ireland,
and to establish popery on its ruins. They were deeply interest-
ed in this, inasmuch as a blow at the root of one of the protestant
estabtishments will necessarily pave the way for the overthrow
of them all. Was it consistent then— was it becoming in a
clergyman of the church of Scotland to give such a marked tes-
timony of approbation to Mr. O'Connell, in his public and
official character, as that which is conveyed by accepting an
invitation to a public dinner, got up avowedly for the purpose
of doing him honour ? It will not do to plead the political
character of the man as the ground of approbation apart from
his other relations for even in this view it was unbecoming,
and positively wrong, to throw the shield of public patronage
around one who openly declared that he came to Scotland on a
revolutionary errand, to overthrow the British constitution as at
present balanced, by setting aside the peers—and, we may add,
by a very quick transition, the King too. Our clergy do not
meddle much with politics, and when they do, is it right, or is
it decent, that thee should encourage politics of the very worst
kind, and pregnant with ruin and disaster to the lands Nor
will it do to plead the talents and the eloquence of Mr. O'Con-
nell. These were both very commanding, as every one who had
heard him could testify: but on these accounts he is only the more
dangerous, and it is a miserable thing when principle and consis-
tency are bartered away for the sake of the empty admiration of
intellect. Moreover, Mr. Brewster was at the time moderator of
presbytery, and thus, in addition to his status as an or-
dinary clergyman, he held the official station of the public re-
presentative of the body to whom he belonged, and whose inte-
rest he is bound to protect. In every view, Dr. B. felt it to be
an incumbent duty on the presbytery to take up the matter, not
in the way of libel, for he had no intention to move for that,
but in the way of inquiry into the farts and circumstances of the
case. He therefore moved, that the moderator be authorised,
to put to Mr. B. the three following questions, which he hoped
would he answered readily and with candour. 1. Did Mr. B.
attend and officiate as chaplain, (by returning thanks,) at the
dinner given at Glasgow, in honour of Daniel O'Connell, M.P.,
on the 22d of September last -.2. Did Mr. B. accompany Mr.
O'Connell on the clay following, in his private carriage, to
Paisley, and thereafter take his seat in the gallery of the Old
Low Church, on occasion of a public meeting, called expressly
for the purpose of hearing and complimenting Mr. O'Connell?
3. Are you the author of the letter signed " P. Brewster, Ab-
bey of Paisley," and printed in the Paisley Advertiser of Oc-
tober 22d? Dr. B. laid on the table a copy of the newspaper
containing the letter, which was read, and the paper was marked
by the clerk as having been produced in court, and ordered to
-be kept in retertis.
Mr. Brewster protested, and appealed to the synod against
the irregular manner in which this subject had been brought
before the presbytery.
Dr. Burns observed that Mr. Brewster hail no right to pro-
test against the motion, as it had not been disposed of, and pro-
posed that the moderator should put the three questions con-
tained in the motion seriatim to Mr. Brewster.

The clerk stated, that it was his opinion that no member
could protest and take instruments in the clerk's hand, with
the view to sist proceedings of court.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Telfer, and carried by a
very large majority, the only dissenters being Mr. Brewster
himself and two elders. The questions were then put seriatim,
when Mr. Brewster readily acknowledged the statement of the
first, but declined giving any reply to those of the second and
third. A long and desultory discussion then ensued, in conse-
quence of Mr. B. having craved leave to withdraw his replies
to questions second and third, which was granted, on which he
moved that the presbytery should tell him through the clerk
whether he might be liable to a charge of contumacy for refus-
ing to answer.. This the presbytery, by a vote, declined to do;
hut several members stated theif opinion that Mr. B. was liable
to the charge, and that it was net creditable in any minister to
forget his ordination vows, or to he ignorant of the laws of the
church. On this Mr. B. entered his appeal to the synod, as he
had done before, but without, as he said, meaning to bar
procedure.
Dr. Burns then rose, and said that to his mind it was a matter
of perfect indifference whether Mr. B. replied to all the ques-
tions or only to the first, although for his part, had he done the
deed, and gloried in it, as Mr, B. seemed to do, he would not
have been ashamed or afraid manfully to avow it. The acknow-,
ledgment of one of the allegations was quite sufficient to enable
him, in the terms of what he must call an extremely moderate
sentence, " That the presbytery agree to record their marked
disapprobation of Mr. Brewster's conduct, in having attended a
public dinner given to Daniel O'Connell, Esq., M.P., in Glas-
gow, ou the 22d of September last, as unseemly arid dissespeeyid
to the principles of the Church of Scotland, and defer for the
present giving judgment on the second and third questions,
which he declined to answer."
Mr. Macfarlan rose to second the motion just made by his
friend Dr. Burns, and he did so with a perfectly clear and dis-
tinct conviction of its justice and propriety. After defending
the form of procedure ndopted by the presbytery, he adverted
to the question put to ministers at their ordination, which they
had all answered and solemnly bound .themselves to obierye,
and in which the very same mode of procedure is recognised
and enforced. He went on to remark—lt is necessary to observe
this, inasmuch as the question before us may seem to many a
matter which belongs only to the individual, and which the

presbytery have little to do with. 'lt is eopettially necessary to
observe this in judging of the grounds they were about to assign
for their approval of the motion; for it is not that Mr. O'Connell,
is such a persoa as that it would- be unlawful for every one to
countenance him iu the way Mr. Brewster has done, but that it
was wrong for him as a minister of the Church of Scotland, bound,
as ehe is, by ordinatiqn vows, and subject, as he is, to that
church, so to do. Now, sir, it will be recollected that the
Church ref Scotland has declared in her standards, and did
maintain. from the earliest period of her history, that the Church
of Rome is the Antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition,
on whom the curse of God is pronounced, as spoken of by the
Apostle Paul in his second epistle to the Thessalonians. I3e it
right or wrong, she has so declared concerning that church,
and this declaration she has embodied in her standards, which
are subscribed by all her ministers. They, therefore, subscribe
to this doctrine. They declare that they du so in anima. And
on this Freund they agree to protest against that church, and on
no occasion to countenance what has thus been solemnly de-
nounced. Mr. O'Connell is a member of the Church of Rome;
but he is more than a member, he has long been known as
the avowed promoter of her interest, and has banded himself
with others to molest and destroy the protestant institutions of
these realms. On these grounds alone it were, as he conceived,
inconsistent on the part of Mr. Brewster to countenance such
an individual by appearing, as he did. on his own confession,
at a public dinner given to Mr. O'Connell, and officiating there
as a minister of the Church of Scotland. But, sir, Mr. O'Con-
nell has exhibited himself in other characters than merely as a
leader among his own party in the Church of Rome. He has
for a series of years indulged in the msst vituperative language
against almost all the venerated institutions of these realms, and
unsatisfied with heaping abuse on men of every rank, he spared
not to apply unbecoming epithets to the highest authority in the
country. Now, sir, he (Mr. Macfarlan) asked-whether it were
not unseemly and disrespectful to the }principles of the Church
of Scotland, for one of her ministers to countenance at a public
dinner such a man ? But the individual to whom we have so
often referred, did not confine his hostility against the institu-
tions of the country to abuse. On entering the House of Corn-
inons, he, with other Roman Catholic members,. came under a
solemn obligation not to employ the power with which they were
to be invested to the prejudice Of the Protestant chUrch, as esta-
blished by law. Aud vet, in the exercise of that very power did
he,unite in virtually eeitinguishing at least 8(X) Protestant esta-
blished churches. lie (Mr, Macfarlan) did not here pronounce
any judgment on this part of his conduct and the conduct of
those who acted with him, as it may appear according to the
laws of the church to which they belong. But this he would
say, that if Mr. O'Connell and his friends were,members of the
Church of Scotland, and if the question were submitted to this,
court, he ( Mr. Macfarlan) would come to, no other judgment
concerning it, than that it was an act of wilful and deliberate
perjury. Now, Sir,. the judgment which this court is to give of,
others as concerns the countenance that was given to Mr.
O'Connell, is not to he regulated by what' the individual shall,
hold concerning his own conduct, or by what it may appear to
other churches, such as that of Rome • but by what it is held to,
be according to the rules and principles of that church of which
they are ministers, and whose standards they have subscribed as
the confession of their faith. [Mr. Brewster inquired whether
Mr. Macfarlan applied the above'remarks to any political party,
or 'merely to Mr. O'Connell. Mr. Macfarlan replied that he
thanked .111 r. Brewster for the opportunity given to explain.
His remarks in connection with the Irish Church applied
exclusively to members of the House of Commons who
had taken the declaration required on the part of Roman
Catholics by the Catholic relief bill.] These remarks,
sir, apply to the individual so often spoken of, chiefly as a.
member of the church of Rome, although in circumstances 'so
special, and of such a kind as greatly to aggravate the incon-
sistency of Mr. Brewster's conduct in the case alluded to: But
they were not with this to forget the occasion on which Mr.
Brewster attended the dinner in question. His friend, Dr.
Burns, had tightly referred to its being a professed object of
Mr. O'Connell's visit to Scotland to revolutionize the House of
Peers, an essential branch of the constitution; with this topic;
however, he (Mr. M'F.) bad no wish farther to interfere. But
there was another object of that visit also avowed, namely, the
promulgation of views and sentiments hostile to the principles
of all religious establishments. Long before this, he had
again and again declared himself opposed to the principle
of all such establishments, and in Edinburgh he avowed
and maintained these sentiments. He did so in his addresses
to the meetings there assembled. This preceded his appearance
in Glasgow, and must have been fully known to their brother
Mr. Brewster. Now, sir, ho (Mr. MT .) did not here give any
judgment as to Mr. O'Connell's conduct in fielding and main-
teining sentiments of this kind; but he (Mr. MT.) asked
the court to consider whether Mr. Brewster was acting consis-
tently as a minister of the church of Scotland in countenancing
an individual holding these sentiments, and in attending a pub-
lic dinner, when ha was bound to suspect retch sentiments would
be advocated by the individual to whom the dinner was given ?
and that their -judgment on this point may rest on clear evi-
dence, he begged leave again to refer to Mr. Brewster's ordina-
tion vows, and to the formula which he subscribed. He (Mr.
MT.) would first read from the questions pat at ordination.
" Are you persuaded that the presbyterian government and
discipline of this chtirch are founded upon the word of God, and
agreeable thereto; and do you promise to submit to the said
government and discipline, and to concur with the same, and
never endeavour, directly or indirectly, to the prejudice or sub-
version thereof, but to the utmost of your power, in your station,
to maintain, support, and defend the said discipline and presby-
terian government, by kirk sessions, presbyteries. provincial
synods, and general assemblies, during all the days of your life ?"
Then from the formula, there is an addition to this—" and 1
promise that I shall followi no divisive course from the present
establishment in this church; renouncing all doctrines, tenets,
- and opinions whatsoever, contrary to, or inconeielvit with, the
said clot-trine, worship, and discipline and government of this
church.'' Now, sir, he would not allege that Mr. Brewster has
directly violated these solemn pledges in countenancing one
who seeks their overthrow, for if they were to find him guilty of
that, then would he he bound to adopt a very different course.
But he (Mr. MT.) put it to every man of plain common ho-
nesty, whether Mr. Bi ewster has not in this acted mestunseemly
and disrespectfully to the principles of the church of which (leis
a minister ; and whether this body, as a presbytery, are not
bound to express concerning his conduct our marked disappro-
bation ? Before concluding, he had one remark to make in
referense to the feelings by which he was persuaded they were
all activated. Speakin,_,* for himself, he c,eild truly say that he
cherished towards Mr. _Brewster no tinkinctly feelings. From
the time that the circumstance-happ_ened it' had been a matter
of unfeigned regret to him (Mr. MT. ;) and so far had he been
from even entertaining the thought of involving their brother in
a libellous charge, it has been his (Mr. M'F.'s) abiding desire
that the presbytery would be so guided as fully to exonerate the
church from being considered as in any respect countenaucing
the conduct complained of, and at the same time to deal with
Mr. Brewster only by admonition. And he (Mr. M'F.) felt it
his duty to add, that in so far as he happened to become ac-
quainted with the sentiments of other members they tippe'ared
to be similar; and he trusted that their decision will show that
while they are determined to maintain the honour and integrity
of the principles of their church, they are actuated-by no other
than brotherly feelings towards Mr:Brewster. And he must,
beyond this, wish, and earnestly desire, that the effect shall be
for the interest of religion lanct; the good of all parties. He
craved leave again to read the,mution which lie had taken the
liberty to second, and having done so he sat down. Mr. Mae-
farlan's speech was listened to with the most marked attention.
Mr. Smith said he had listened with pleasure to the arguments
adduced and the etetements made by the preceding speakers,
satisfied, as he was, that these must have carried conviction into
the head and heart of every member.
Mr Brewster said, very emphatically, " Not in mine."
Mr. Macnaughtan could not give a silent vote on the occa-
sion, and stated his entire concurrence iu what had been said.
He did not charge Mr. B. with having any leaning to popery,
or to voluntaryism, its inseparable' ally. He acquitted him of
this, but held that his conduct on the whole matter was highly
reprehensible.
Mr. Brewster said, that, in rising to make a few observations,
he wished it to be clearly understood that he protested against
the manner in which Dr. Burns had, iu his speech, brought this
subject before the presbytery, as well as the motion itself. He
wished this to be entered into the minutes of this day's proceed-
ings. He again complained that the court should have taken
up the business without giving him some previous notice of
their intention to do so. He ackowleclged that he had received
a letter from Dr. Burns through his colleague, Mr. Macneir ;
but he (Mr. B.) only considered this as an aggravation, because
hi thought that Dr. Burns should have waited on him (Mr. B.)
personally. Even after he had committed the fault (if it was
such) of attending Mr. O'Connell's dinner, it was elle duty of
Dr. Burns, if he felt offended at his (Mr. B.'s) conduct, to have
called upon him as a brother, anti endeavoured to have con-
vinced him of his error. But he blamed them all for their uu-
brotherly conduct So far as he followed Mr. Macfarlan, he
understood him to have asserted that Mr. O'Connell bad banded
himself with other members of the House of Commons for the
destruction of the protestant established church. He was also
charged with being a revolutionist. Ile (Mr. B.) denied this,
or that there was any proof that he had done so. He would
bring under their notice the report of the coMmissioners ap-
pointed to inquire into the present condition of the Established
Church of Ireland, as published in Chambers's Historical News-
paper. ( Here a number of individuals rose and left the meet-
ing, at which Mr. Brewster was a little nettled, and observed
that the opinions of persons who would not hear b"th sides of
the question were of little value.) After order was restored,
Mr. Brewster proceeded to read the report, which was of con-
siderable length.' It entered minutely into the state of that
church, the amount of its revenues, the number of parishes,
the number of protestant' in these parishes, those which had no
churches, while the clergymen collected the tithes; and a num-
ber of other particulars. Now, it did not require many Words
from him, after reading that document, to point out the nature
and tendency of such an establishment. He would ask if Scot-
land would y hive . submitted sa long to stick_ an. oppressive
aniteh establishment? The catholics of Ireland had not only
to do this, but they had besides to pay their own clergy out of
their smell incomes. He hoped soon to see a more equitable
system introduced. Men had been found in Scotland who dis-
countenanced sorb a system, and some of their countrymen
were ashimed of them. It had been said that Mr. O'Connell
contemplated the overthrow of the protestant church, but there
had been no proof adduced to satisfy him (Mr. R.) the he ever
did so. He had seen his poor oppressed countrymen borne
down by the hand of oppression. and he had made great exer-
tions to procure the amelioration of their condition. After an
ample provision for the established church in Ireland, he was
willing that the surplus revenue should be devoted to the edu-
cation of its inhabitants; surely there was nothing very unrea-
sonable in this. If, as had been stated, he had banded himself
with a party for the overthrow of the protestant church, would
he not have been punished for this? That great and good man,
(for he would call him such,) bad done much, and would still
do much, not only for his own country, but for other countries
that required reform. As a patriot and a philanthropist he
(Mr. B.) had a right as a British subject to give Mr. O'Connell
every encouragement. There was, previous to the dinner in
Glasgow, a requisition got up inviting him to come there; that
requisition only referred to his political conduct, and had no re-
ference whatever to his religious principles. This of itself was
'sufficient to - sweep away all the rubbish that had been heaped
up against him (Mr. B.) for attending the dinner. After al-
luding to-the attempts which were making to establish episco-
palianism, he concluded by stating that be opposed the speech
as well as the motion of Dr. Burns. _

Dr. Burns, having made the motion, replied shortly to Mr.
Brewster.
The motion was then put from the chair and carried by a ma-
jority of ten to three. The minority consisted of himself and
Messrs. Young and INPFee, elders. Mr. Macnair was not
present, and the Abbey elder, Mr. Macnab, declined voting.
Mr. Brewster protested to the synod, but said he might possibly
not press his appeal.
An overture having been agreed to at the Synod, on the
means to be employed for preventing the spread of Popery,
and extracts from the minutes not having been forwarded, M.
Macfarlan intimated his intention to mote at next meeting,
that as one of the means to he employed, the Presbytery shall
agree to intimate to the ministers within their bounds, of preach
on Sabbath, 20th December, on the subject of the first establish-
ment of the Church of Scotland in 1560; the 20th December,
of that year having been the day on which the first General
Assembly was held.
He also announced his intention to move an overture on the
revival of Presbyterial visitations; and another on the improve-
ment of education in parochial and other Schools under the in-
secetion of the Presbytery.