The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-11-08 00:00:00

ON THE KIRK OF SCOTLAND.

AS •//ICTED DT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF
raisespAt. MACFARLANS AND TILE DIEM cmeitca OP
tiLASORW.
(Coutiatted from the Marrow Free New. )

"At a Ventry Meeting ►eld at Cork, act Friday sennight, this Ma r of t►e
City stated that the R,v. James Mears, the View of that parish, bait who
►ad ant visited It tor tbit last six years, possessed no less than Affeen Vicar-
ages, Ante Rectories, one Piebendary, • elobc-house. with MI acres at Mad,
and tale or Am( Churches."—(Cork Paper.)
" To Ws complexion would they COMO at last."-.SIAILS

We shall now proceed to view this subject under the
there following heads -
Ilas it been the policy or practice of the Scottish
Kirk to allow its ministers to reeeiVe more from the church
than what is absolutely necessary to maintain them and
their families in a state of simple respectability?
Y. Are the Acts of Parliament and the Acts of the fie
oval Assembly favourable or unfavourable to Dr. *Far.
lace's admission? . _

3. Would Dr, M•Farlane's admission more benefit or
injure the Kirk of Scotland ?
First, then, has it been the policy or practice of the
Scottish Kirk to allow its Ministers to receive more from
the Church than whst is absolutely necessary to main-
tain than and their families in a state of sint.ile respects
ability ?
The best and most conclusive answer to this question
is, that there neither is now, nor was there ever, at any
previous period, livings in the present Established Kirk of
Scotland amounting to more than what might decently
keep a Minister and his family. The fact of no such&
livings having ever been allowed, is proof positive tha
the Church, in the true spirit of Christianity, never in-
tended its Ministers to become opulent by their sacred
offices. llotvever, as this is a general position, we will
try if the same cannot be demonstrated by individual acts,
In the year 1569, it was enacted by the General Assent—
bly. "That such as have plurality of benefices be compelled
to demit all save one." In 1586 the General As-embly or-
daioeil." The Commissioners of Counties to try within their
bounds such of the Ministers as have plurality of benefices
and offices, to report their names, that the Kirk may take
order for the removing thereof." Quotations from many
other Acts might be made; but the Act of 1317, so
much alluded to as beine ftvourable to Dr. M'Farlane,
clesrly shows that not only sloes the Church reprobate the
holding of incompatible offices, but that site equally repro-
bates exorbitant stipends.
Now, one of the chief arguments of Dr. M'Parlane's ad-
vocates is, that the duties of the Principal of the College
are so small, the oilier is a sinecure. tiratrine. tits to be
true, (ivaieli all who we acquainted with these duties know
it is not), what does it amount to? Why, that the Kirk
of Scotland not only allows, but sanctions, the acceptance
of sinecures by its Ministers; and that the Principals of
Universities, who are supposed to have something to do
with the sacred charze of educating, preparing, and look.
kg over the conduct of a future Minis•er of rite Gospel,
and those principals bring too Ministers of tit- Gospel
themselves, shall he supported in their unblushing attempts
to severa!ly enjoy 51,01. or 001. per annum, for doing what
they ronfe-s to be nothing? If 0143 1111 l morons ' •trine be
now supported, what become: of the practice and pdliey of
the Church up to till. proud ?
.tlane instaoers might be adduced t meei.
ficing their and a portion of their lacoate, in

, . •
•