— r 
 
 J 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 4 
 
 /. 
 
 
 
 :/. 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 1^128 
 
 |5 ■^" 
 
 25 
 2.0 
 
 1^ M 
 
 18 
 
 U 1111.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 ,%. 
 
 /a 
 
 /a 
 
 
 
 ^>/' 
 
 O^M 
 
 y 
 
 /^ 
 
 ^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions institut canadien de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
 A 
 
Technical Notes / Notes techniques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 ddfauts susceptibles de nuire d la quality de la 
 reproduction sont not6s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 n 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu6es 
 
 Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serr^ (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 intdrieure) 
 
 
 
 □ 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endomniag^es 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 n 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 D 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 
 Des pages manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes gdographiques manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires 
 
re 
 lins 
 B la 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 contain the symbol — ► (meaning CONTINUED"), 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6td reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de I'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la der- 
 nidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: 
 le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbole 
 V signifie "FIN". 
 
 The original copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the kind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 Maps or plates too large to be entirely included 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper left hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames as required. The 
 following diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 L'exemplaira film^ fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de T^tablissement prdteur 
 suivant : 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre 
 reproduites en un seul clich6 sont filmdes d 
 partir de Tangle supdrieure gauche, de gauche d 
 droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la mdthode : 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
i- 
 
<K><W«MBW; 
 
 «■ 
 
 \i> 
 
 ENDOWMENTS 
 
 OK THE 
 
 CHURCH OF SCOTLAND IN CANADA. 
 
 EV-IDENOE 
 
 or 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS BRYMNER 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THK SENATE COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILLS, 
 
 In opposition to the Bills for transferring the said Endowments 
 to tlie Presbyter i(in Church in Ganad/x. 
 
 24th and 26th APRIL, 1882. 
 
 V 
 
 HUNTER, ROSE & CO., 23 & 25 WELLINGTON ST. WEST.. - " 
 
 •\.i .; <• -J'.-. . 1883. ■ yh.'% 
 
 /JJ 
 
( 
 
 J 
 
 H 
 
 HU 
 
->[DOWME]srTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHURCH OF SCOTLAND IN CANADA 
 
 EVIDENCE 
 
 Of 
 
 ME. DOUGLAS BEYMNER 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON PMVATE BILLS, 
 
 In opposition to the Bills for transferring the said Endoivments 
 to the Presbyterian Church in Canada. 
 
 24th and 26th APRIL, 1882. 
 
 HUNTER, ROSE & CO., 23 AND 25 WELLINGTON STREET WEST. 
 
 1883. 
 
 ■\1 
 
 n 
 
mil 
 
 jori 
 
 nee 
 
 tlir 
 
 the 
 
 hov 
 
 lati 
 
 and 
 
 Dol 
 
 suit 
 
 by 1 
 
 Dol 
 
 succ 
 
 call^ 
 
 cisic 
 
 asid 
 
 oftl 
 
 (ag. 
 
 of S 
 
 pert 
 
 aftei 
 
 and 
 
 threi 
 
 
 wou 
 
 
 for. 
 
 
 tenc 
 
 
 gent 
 
 • ■""'"'-,.,' ■■,.•". 
 
 "] 
 
 
 disci 
 
 . .■ •" i 
 
 
ENDOWMENTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHURCH OF SCOTLAND IN CANADA. 
 
 The following ovidenco, given before the Piivate Bills Com 
 iiiittee of the Senate of Canada, needs little explanation. A ma 
 jority of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in con- 
 nection with the Church of Scotland, resolved in 1874 to join 
 three religious boflies and to form a new organisation, to be called 
 the Presbyterian Churcli in Canada. Before they would do so, 
 however, they sought and obtained Acts from the Provincial Legis- 
 latures enabling them to take possession of the properties, funds 
 and colleges of the Church thoy were leaving. The Rev. Robert 
 Dobie, acting on behalf of the adherents of the Church, raised a 
 suit to set aside the Provincial Acts, the suit being finally decided 
 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in favour of Mr. 
 Dobio, in January, 1882. Application was then made by the un- 
 successful litigants, to the Parliament of Canada, for Acts practi- 
 cally to legalise the Provincial Legislation and to override the de- 
 cision of the highest Court of the Empire by which that was set 
 aside. How these Acts were carried may be best told in the words 
 of the Rev. George Grant, who constituted himself the Mercury 
 (a god of very varied attributes) of those who had left the Church 
 of Scotland in Canada, and desired to take possession of the pro- 
 perty of her adherents. The statement was written immediately 
 after his return from a successful lobbying, in the course of which, 
 and covertly in the Committee of the House of Commons, he had 
 threatened that at the approaching general election every membe. 
 would be bitterly opposed who refused to pass the Bills sought 
 for. The picture, not a flattering one, is thinly veiled under pre- 
 tence of a general attack on party government. The reverend 
 gentleman says : — 
 
 " I have described members of Parliament as they are when 
 discussing any general measure. But there is another side to the 
 
 ;f 
 
IV 
 
 rilKFACE. 
 
 ])icturc. Lot the matter tlioy are diseussin;; Ix; one affectini,' party 
 aetions, and they Ijoconie as ditierent IVom tlusir nonnal c'<)n(iiti(jn 
 a.s ni<,']it is from day. Intellect is snppressiMl, conscience hushed, 
 i^'ood sense is banished, and <;ood maimers cease. Everything,' that 
 makes men worthy of respect is sacrificed to tlio <,'roat god party. 
 What must he the effect from this hlindin;^' of the intellect, this 
 twisting nf the conscience, this lowering of high ideals, this gra- 
 dual destruction of self-respect ? From first to last it is evil, evil 
 only eontiimally. There is scarcely a (luestion to which evciy 
 mend)er is not connuitted before the discussion is commenced. 
 There is really no discussion at all. Discussion means an actual 
 efi'ort to ascertain the truth, or what is l)est for the country. But 
 all that a caucus considers is : How will it immediately injure or 
 benefit the party ? This being decided, there connnences an ela- 
 borate suppression of unpleasant evidence, and a systematic mys- 
 tification of facts." 
 
uMition 
 liushcfl, 
 iii<j that 
 I party, 
 'ct, this 
 his ^n*a- 
 ivil.evil 
 h every 
 menced. 
 n actual 
 y. But 
 ijuro or 
 s an ela- 
 tic mys- 
 
 STATEMENT 
 
 BT 
 
 MR DOUGLAS T3RYMNER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 COMMITTEK ON rillVATK HILLS OK TIIK SKNATE OK CANADA. 
 
 Ottawa, Mou.lay 24th April, 18S2. 
 
 Mr. Doi'oLAS Brymner, who appeared as representative of the 
 con^^fre^fations of the Clnirch, heiiig called upon, said : " Not being 
 a professional speaker, J \v<Hild beg the (.'Oiuniittee to exercise as 
 much forbearance as possible, if I do not present my argument as 
 clearly as a practised lawyer would do. I am neither a lawyer 
 nor a minister, but a plain elder of the Church of Scotland, trusted 
 honestly to present the case of my brethren, and accustomed to 
 the (juiet of my office and study, not to the discussion publicly of 
 cither this or any other (juestion. I want to speak the exact 
 truth, and to get it out I am willing, indeed anxious, to answer 
 every question it' my points are not made clear. All I ask is, and 
 I think, sir, you will admit it is a reasonable request, that I .shall 
 not be subjected to unnecessary interru|>tions nor to unreasonable 
 questions. Let me remind the Committee, Mr. Chairman, that 
 they are by the present Bills asked to deal with trusts which have 
 been secured by legislation for certain objects, to be carried out 
 by a certain named class of people, and in a certain prescribed 
 way. Let me say, further, that these bills must, at least should 
 be, decided on princi[)les which affect faith to obligations, the 
 perpetuity of tenure, the validity of contracts, and the sanctity of 
 trusts. The Bills practically ask Parliament to sit as a Court of 
 Review over the Privy Council, which declared that the people 
 represented by Mr. Dobie in the suit against the Temporalities' 
 Board are prima facie, as the title to the Bill itself declares, ben- 
 eficiaries under the Trust ; and to decide that they are lunatics, min- 
 ors, or aliens, not capabb of holding their own property or admin- 
 istering their own affairs. These, the Committee will pardon me 
 for pointing out, are the subjects to be considered in dealing with 
 the Bills, all of the Bills, now before you. I don't want to detain 
 you, sir, with preliminary observations, but you will, perhaps, 
 allow me to lay down two propositions with respect to the Synod. 
 First, then, the Synod, ecclesiastically, is the Supreme Court of 
 
till' Cliiircli, nctin;; iindt-r a dclinitc, ii;,'i"l, uii"I iiiiiiltcralilt! crood, 
 any coiitiavcntioii of wliicli can he clicckid l»y luiy one incmlier 
 of the Cliurcli, tli<»n;^')i ho he not a nioinher of the Synod, the 
 nionicnt (liat aHiets liiin in his ri'dits as a niendicr oftlie (Mnircli. 
 The secoml is, that tlie Syno<l, civilly, is a mere coniniittee or 
 snprivisoiy l!oard, whose functions are t(» |»res(ivr and ;^Miard the 
 tenij»oi)d interests of the Clinich, an<l to ineMiit the alienation of 
 the (Jhiiich's jnoperty ly the 'J'lnstees tliroii<4li wlutse niedinni it 
 is liehl, and it has no jtower to alienate the jnopeity itself. The 
 ( '<)n)niittee will ohservo that these |tr(j])ositions leaeh the jneten- 
 sions of the ]))'onioteis of the liills at once. They have oNcr and 
 over maintained that niajoiilics rule in evelythin^^ that the 
 Synod is the (Jhurcli, and has the whole ])ower inheient by Miu 
 mere force of a majority to do anythin<^^ it likes. There su ly, 
 sir, is nothing' to justify such i sta'^'inent, and I think the al»lo 
 ar<fument of our learned coun. d, Mr. Maeniaster, has fully .sliown 
 that any one man can enforce the terms of a trust. He caimot 
 claim the property. That is a perversion. All alon^' we liavc 
 been sneeringly told that the nine men who remained out, it is 
 not a very kindly way of speakin;^' of tlie faithful ministers wlio 
 have adhered to us, to tlie people for whom they minister, empha- 
 tically to the Church of Scotland in Canada, let it be denied as 
 often as those who liave seceded from it may, these nine men, I 
 say, couM not take the property, but any one mend)er of the 
 Church, whether he is a layman or a minister, can enforce the 
 terms of the Trust, and compel the Trustees to administer as the 
 terms direct. The determination of these Trusts would be settled 
 by the decision of the (piestion of who adhered to the oi-iginal 
 creed, to the designation and to the connection of the Church. 
 If the majority destroyed the complete identity in all, or in any of 
 these, they would be unable to enforce their will on the minor- 
 ity, be they few or many. Let me state here, befoie proceeding 
 further, that the persistent use of the word Church, >vhen only 
 the Synod is meant, is not warranted by fact. The Church is one 
 thing, the Synod of the Church is the deliberative body created 
 by the Church, and so far from the extinction of the Synod 
 involving the extinction of the Church, there is not the slightest 
 need, so far as its existence is concerned, of a Synod at all, of a 
 Church Court at all, or even of a minister. Our own Church 
 existed for many years without either Presbytery or Synod, and 
 might have continued to exist to this day in the same way, which 
 I will show at the proper time. Let me, however, refer this 
 Committee to a judgment in appeal in the Court of Session in 
 Scotland, the opinion of the Court being delivered by the Lord 
 President. In this case the Reformed Presbyterians, the Coven- 
 anters, had a division, as we have had, the majority joined the 
 Free Church, as the majority in our case has done. The majority 
 declared that the minority had seceded from the Church because 
 
ilu' iimjoiity bouiul all to .submit, exactly as tlic majority in oiii" 
 case is cloin^. TIio majority (icclarcd tlmy lunl full powrr to join 
 anotlier bo<iy, as tlio iimjoiity in our ca8t> <loc'laie<l, ami tliat the 
 IvL-fbrmed Prosliyteiian ('liiirch I'xistoil in tlu' Fife Church, as 
 tlie majority in o»n' own case declares oui' ( 'lunch does in the 
 I'roshyterian ('hme)i in ( 'anada. 'I'he case arose in connection 
 with claims on a fund called the Fer^^nson Jje(|Uest Fund, and the 
 Court lield tliat the minority was the Reformed Treshyteriaii 
 Chureli, exactly as the Courts held in our case, that we arc tho 
 Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection witli tlu; Churcli 
 (»1 Scotland. The Lord Picsidt-nt, after tracing' the liistory of 
 the Covenanters, or Reformed l*res)»yterian Churcli, says: — 
 
 **Tlio iini»ortiint fHcta for tho present lairposo are, their liaviiig ronmincd 
 steadfust and iinitod fur sixteen years v>ith()Ut a minister, and for nioro than 
 half a century without a iiresbytery, to winch luiist be added this fact also, 
 that it was more than 120 years after tho Uo volution before they succeeded 
 in establishing a synod." 
 
 A Mkmmkr.^ — What is the date of that case ? 
 
 Mr, liiiYMNKK. — The date of tlie judgment is tlie IGtli January, 
 1S79, andit i.s publislied in tho 67c^</oit; iVcms of the next day. 
 Tin. copy 1 liave was sent me by one of the minority synod ^ the 
 Coveiuinters. His Lord.ship continues : 
 
 ** In these circumstances it would be a contradiction of historical fact to 
 Bay tliat no one can bo held to belong to the body and to profess its princi- 
 ples, who does not acknowledge tho authority of the Jteformed Presbyterian 
 •Synod, which was constituted for the first time in 1811." 
 
 Hoa Mr. Boyd. — But they joined another Church holding 
 different doctrines. 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — The honourable member will, I am sure, par- 
 don me if I say that the point 1 am trying to make lias nothing 
 to do with doctrine. Th oy might have joined the Hindoos. I 
 am trying to show that a Church can exist without a Synod 
 or even a minister, and believe the Court of Sessions says so. 
 If I may be allowed to point out to this Committee, our case 
 should be treated like any other civil case, for it is only in its 
 civil aspect you can deal with it. But the decision of the House 
 of Commons appears to have been given on ecclesiastical grounds, 
 and on statements that the Synod had full power to do with 
 this fund what a majority liked, so long as the Synod proceeded 
 constitutionally, and next, that the Synod observed all the con- 
 stitutional safeguards prescribed by its own constitution. I feel 
 the impropriety of bringing some of these f{uestions before a 
 legislative Committee, and am quite prepared to hear objections 
 raised to my discussing them. But I ask you, sir, to remember 
 that we have not raised these questions, and that we believe 
 them to be such as should be settled by the Courts ; but hav- 
 ing been used to carry the Bills, and it having been distinctly 
 laid down in the Committee of the House of Commons, and appa- 
 
8 
 
 rently assented to, that if we could show that the Synod did not 
 act constitutionally according to its own laws, the Bills could not 
 pass, we think we are fairly entitled to be heard on these as on 
 all other aspects of the (|uestions before your Honourable Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. J. L. MoiiRis. — Who laid down that ? My belief is that it 
 was laid down differently. 
 
 Mr. BuYMNER. — I believe it was the Hon "William McDougall ; 
 indeed, I might say positively it was, but any way the Committee 
 appeared to accept of it. 
 
 Mr. MoRius. — That is contrary to my belief. 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — If the Committee would allow me, then, I may 
 state that I propose, before taking uj) the real points on which 
 this should be decided, to dispose of the outlying pretensions of 
 ecclesiastical gentlemen, and the plea that everything was done 
 decently and in order. The statement that all the proceedings 
 towards union were conducted in accordance with the constitu- 
 tional law of the Church I at once challengfe. Don't let jne be 
 misunderstood. I don't admit that these gentlemen had any 
 power whatever to set aside Trusts, but admitting for the moment 
 that they had, then they violated all the laws of the Church by 
 the way they went about ic. First, then, the proposal was intro- 
 duced without an overture. In June, 1870, as will be seen by 
 the official minutes of the synod of the Presbyterian Church of 
 Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, to which I 
 belong, and whose people I am representing. — 
 
 A Member. — What year did you say ? 
 
 Mr. Brymner.— The year 1870; the page is 30 of the minutes 
 of that yean Well, in June, 1870, the Kev. Dr. Jenkins, one of 
 our ministers, produced and read a letter from Rev. Dr. Orraiston, 
 a minister in the Canada Presbyterian Church (the Free Church) 
 suggesting the appointment of a committee to consider the ques- 
 tion of union; a comm^' . was appointed, and that this was the 
 
 it is proved by the first report of the 
 found at page ll-i of the minutes of 
 ,unity to have made the action legal, 
 were concerned, for an overture was 
 Bent from Lindsay three days after the appointment of the com- 
 mittee, but dismissed, as the committee had already been ap- 
 pointed. Now the law on this subject, ecclesiastical I mean, of 
 course, is positive. There can be no subject whatever discussed 
 unless it is introduced by way of overture. 
 
 A Member. — What do you mean by an overture ? 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — That is one of our difficulties in discussing 
 questions, when the very terminology of the subject lo unknown. 
 An overture is the initiation of all action in our Church Courts. 
 You are all aware that no money bill can be introduced into the 
 Commons except by letter from His Excellency the Governor- 
 
 sole reason of the app^ 
 committee on union, to b 
 1871. There was an opp 
 so far as the technical rui 
 
9 
 
 ul, 
 
 was 
 
 oni- 
 
 ap- 
 
 ,of 
 
 scd 
 
 General, that resolutions are founded on iliat, and then follows 
 the bill founded on the resolutions. That, without goin^' into 
 technicalities, is the meaning of an overture, which, I trust, is 
 satisfactory. 
 
 The Chairman. — Certainly ; go on. 
 
 Mr. BiiYMNER. — Before going further, I would like to lay before 
 your Honourable Committee, the ecclesiastical law on this subject. 
 At page 34 of the Synod minutes of 1859 are these rules, or stand- 
 ing orders : — 
 
 " I. A motion shall not be competent unless proposed in reference to a 
 subject regularly introduced to the Court by petition, bill, appeal," itc. 
 
 "IV. A motion shall not be competent if in any way, implied or expressed, 
 it contravenes any doctrine, public act, or standing order of the Church. 
 The only way in which any public act or standing order may be competently 
 moditied or suspended, shall be by the intrjduction of an overture or peti- 
 tion through the Connnittee of iJills and Overt\iies, which overture or i)eti- 
 tion must, detail fully the circumstances in which, and the reasons for wliich, 
 any modification of the terms or temporary suspension of the operations of 
 any public act or any standing order is recpiired." 
 
 Perhaps, sir, the Committee would allow me to call attention to 
 the significant omission of the word "doctrine" in the second 
 part of the standing order I have just read. The rule says that 
 a motion shall not be competent if in any way, implied or cx- 
 l)ressed, it contravene any doctrine, public act or standing order 
 of the Church. That is positive. It then shows how public 
 acts or standing orders — rules and regulations, — that is, may be 
 changed, but it does not withdraw the prohibition against the 
 contravention of doctrine, whether that be implied or expressed. 
 That should, so far as doctrines are concerned, settle the question 
 as to the powers of majorities in our Synod, whatever powers 
 others may claim. 
 
 A Member. — These are very technical points. Is there any 
 use detaining the Committee with these ? 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — No doubt they are very technical and very 
 tiresome, and had only technical violations of the rules been com- 
 mitted, I should certainly not venture to occupy your time, sir, 
 with such trifling matters. But what I propose to show is, that 
 these technical rules being violated, a very serious damage was 
 inflicted on the Church. If you would only bear with me for a 
 little, while I lay the foundation for my argument, I think I can 
 show you that the evils caused were real, and not that there was 
 a mere technical om-ission causing no harm. May I proceed ? 
 
 The Chairman. — Certainly ; I think, gentlemen, we should get 
 all the information we can. I, at least, desire to do full justice 
 to the opponents of these bills, which are very important to a 
 gj'eat many people. 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — The next rule I call attention to is one laid down 
 in 18Cf), by which it is provided that papers of every description, 
 without exception, intended to be submitted to the Synod, must 
 
10 
 
 l»e laid before the coinniittce on lousiness ; and accurate intimations 
 of their contents must be forwarded to the Synod Clerk, at least 
 four clear days before tlie meeting of Synod. Now, I trust that 
 this Committee will follow the coui'se of what took |)lace. The con- 
 tents of that letter from Dr. Ormiston to Dr. Jenkins should liave 
 been ascertained ; they should have been reported on by the com- 
 mittee on business ; the subject of it should have been on the 
 printed docket of business, so that every member should know what 
 was proposed and be prepared for discussion. But witlujut notice, 
 the letter was suddenly produced and I'ead, late at night, with 
 very few present ; a conunittee was appointed and the work was 
 done, scarcely a soul knowing what had taken place. We are told 
 that the subject was for years before the members of the Church. 
 But he w^ould be a bold man who could say that more than a 
 dozen men, out of a certain circle, knew a word of it. The pro- 
 ceedings were conducted in the most private manner. The papers 
 took little notice of them, but the moment anything practical was 
 suggested, then 0])position was shown. Surely, with all these 
 facts before you, it cannot be said our objections are mere techni- 
 cal quibbling. But the next step was worse. It has been repeated 
 and repeated that the people were asked to decide on the question 
 of union and did so. They were never asked. The question was 
 never submitted. The Basis of Union itself shows this. 
 
 It being one o'clock, the Committee adjourned till Wednesday, 
 the ^Oth. 
 
 Wednesday, 2C April, 1882. 
 
 Mr. Brymner resumed his statement, and after brieflv review- 
 ing the points he had discussed, said 1 stated on Monday, that the 
 question of Union never was sent to congregations. It was not 
 sent even to Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions. Let me briefly tell 
 the Committee how these things ought to be done, when any 
 change in rules and regulations is to be made. The remits, as 
 they are technically called, should go from the higher to the im- 
 mediately lower church court — from Synod to Presbytery, from 
 Presbytery to Kirk Session, from Kirk Session to Congregation. 
 By a return movement, any complaint comes back as it went down, 
 and is decided below, subject to appeal in the ascending series. 
 In this case, the remit was sent direct, with the practical result 
 I shall show. The basis itself is evidence that the question of Union 
 was never submitted. The basis was twice sent down. The first 
 in 1873, is headed : " The following is the basis of Union agreed 
 upon by the Synod at its last meeting, and sent down to congre- 
 gations for approval." In the official return there is the following 
 
 statement, in reference to one of the congregations Clarke- It 
 
 says, •* attendance small. Had the question been Union or no 
 
 > 
 
11 
 
 Union tlicy would not Live been nnaninions." In tlio cliuicli at Ot- 
 tawa, to wliicli 1 ItL'longed, 1 asked if tliere was to bo no discussion 
 on the subject of Union, and was answered by the chairnian that 
 it had been decided that no discussion sliouhl be allowed but that 
 we must vote yea or nay on tlie l»asis. To show liow much could 
 be learned of the mind of the people from answers to the questions 
 let me read the iiist. " The Scriptures of the Ohl and New Tes- 
 taments, being th(; Word ol God aie the oidy infallible rule of faitli 
 and manners." If the congre«^mtions did not want Union, they 
 must answer no to such a truism among Ciiristians. If the answer 
 wns yes, then the congregation had decided for Union. I moved 
 a substantive motion to bring the real (piestion up, which was ruled 
 out. I have the newspaper report c^f what took ])lace, if any one 
 challenges it. I then tabled a protest, and Mr., now Judge, Ross 
 and myself advised those who agreed with us not to vote, a .J the 
 newspapei- re])ort says I left the church with a number of <'thers, 
 and Union was carried unanimously. 1 appealed to the Session, 
 which declined to discuss the a])poal, on the ground that the remit 
 was sent direct to the Synod. 1 obtained a certified extract of the 
 resolution and went to the Presbytery with the same result. 
 Armed w^ith both certificates, I went to the Synod, which declin- 
 ed to deal with my complaint, on the ground that it was not 
 regularly transmitted. I ask the membei's of the Committee, sir, 
 with this statement before them, if 1 am carping at slight techni- 
 cal irregularities. In June, 1874, the basis was changed, and was 
 sent down as before in terms of tlie Barrier Act. If there is any 
 lavv in our Church more carefully observed than anotlier it is this. 
 Its express purpose is to prevent hasty changes in the least im- 
 portant of our rules — not of our doctrines and constitution, which 
 cannot be changed. By that Act, no change, however slight, can 
 be made without great care and after at least a year's delay — that 
 is from. one regular annual meeting of Synod to another. Well, in 
 terms of the Barrier Act, the question could not come up till June 
 1875. The dominant party iiad resolved not to close the meeting 
 in June, 1874, but to adjourn it till November. The Synod then 
 met by adjournment, the constituent members in June, being, of 
 course, the constituent members in November. A strict law of 
 our Church is that the roll of members of the Synod, being our 
 highest ecclesiastical court, can only be altered at the annual gen- 
 eral meeting, but to make this appear to be a new meeting, a new 
 roll was ordered to be prepared, although the major part of the 
 Presbyteries had not sent theirs in, the Roll of Synod being made 
 up from the Rolls of Presbyteries. Against this decision protest 
 was entered. The Synod was, then, an illegal meeting, yet it vot- 
 ed to break up the Church, and resolved to get legislation to secure 
 the property. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Power. — Have you the law relating to the election 
 of representatives ? 
 
12 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — The law is that representative elders are to ho 
 elected withiti'tvvo months after the annual meeting of Synod. It 
 is in the minutes, bu^ I really forget the year it was passed. It is 
 so well known that any one belonging to our Church can confirm 
 what I say. Mr. (jordon, you are perfectly aware that that is the 
 law. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Gordon. — I decline to make any statement on tho 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — The only effect of that is to cause a little de- 
 lay whilst I look it up. 
 
 The Chairman. — 1 don't suppose anyone doubts the gentleman's 
 word, go on, please. 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — That meeting in November 1874,l)ccause the roll 
 was changed, was, then, an illegal meeting ; and the one in Junc^ 
 1875, was also an illegal meetinir because there was no election sub- 
 sequent to November, 1874. Under the Barrier Act the question 
 could not have come up for settlement before June,l87o, but by that 
 time the whole matter had been settled, legislation had been got,and 
 the majority of the Synod moved off to join another church. Let 
 me point out now the effect of these violations of the law. Ac- 
 cording to the official return of the votes in June, 1874, there voted 
 for Union, that is voted that certain truisms were facts, 10 Pres- 
 byteries, 88 Sessions and 107 Congregations. But so soon as the 
 real discussion beo-an there was a marked chanfje. Instead of 10 
 Presbyteries voting yea, only 8 did so by majorities, and 3 declin- 
 ed to send returns, the fail- inference being in this that they could 
 not vote that the statements in the basis were not true, yet they 
 did not want to break up their Church. Instead of 88 Session 
 voting yea, only 80 did so, 12 voted nay and 40 made no return. 
 Instead of 107 congregations voting yea, only 95 did so, 10 voted 
 nay, and 45 made no returns. It is stated by our opponents that 
 out of 150 congregations, only 10 voted against Union, but here is 
 their own official return showing that only 95 voted for Union, 
 whilst 55 voted nay or declined to vote. 
 
 A MiiMBER. — Where are these congregations now ? Have they 
 not since accepted Union. 
 
 Mr. BryinTNEr. — The Committee, sir, will find that 33 congre- 
 gations have petitioned against the bills, the 7,000 signatures be- 
 ing those of bona fide adherents of the Church of Scotland in 
 Canada. It must be remembered that the Union Acts declared 
 every congregation in the Union, and those refusing it must fight 
 their way out. Every congregation, almost without exception, 
 which tried to get out was attacked by a law -suit, and finally they 
 were advised not to spend their money till the Temporalities' suit 
 was settled, as by the decision in that case we expected that the 
 Acts would be declared worthless. The Committee will pardon 
 me, if I give one illustration. The congregation at Bayfield were 
 attacked. They lost their case upon some technical plea as to the , 
 
13 
 
 way the meetin<,' was called, thereby lost thtiir church and were 
 .saddled with 1?(S(M) of costs. Now, be kind enough to observe, the 
 ])eople who got the church had never belonged to it and never con- 
 tributed a dollar to building it. On the other hand, so anxious 
 were those who built it to have it free of debt that one young lady 
 who had received $50 as a birthday present to buy a silk di-ess, 
 asked her mother's leave to <dve that to the buildiiiij fund of the 
 church ; the mother not onl}'^ consented, but gave herself a similar 
 amount. Yet these people you are asked to declare to be no longer 
 members of the Church to which they belong. In the Synod itself 
 <S8 voted for Union in June, ltS74, whilst at the illegal meeting in 
 Nov. lcS74,only G!S voted for it. It is true that in June,l(S75, there 
 api^ear !)0 votes for Union, but that was after legislation had been 
 got, which they were told could not be set aside. Now, sir, I 
 think I have proved that the })roceedings were not constitutional ; 
 that they were in complete violation of the laws of our (Jhurch, and 
 that the objections I have made are not made to mere technical 
 omissions, but to such as affect and vitiate in es.sentials the whole 
 course of proceedings. Let me now call attention to the remark- 
 able actions of the majority which say they took the Church with 
 them. By the Bill now before you, sir, they ask you to authorise 
 the payment in perpetuity of $2,000 a year to Queen's College, and 
 to give power to capitalize that amount at once, and they state that 
 this is in accordance with the original Act of Incorporation of 185H. 
 I have looked into that Act in vain for any such power. I find 
 by the By-Laws of the Temporalities' Board, that authority is 
 given to the Chairman and Treasurer to pay £500 ($2,000) a year 
 to the Treasurer for the time being of Queen s College, to be em- 
 ployed, as heretofore, in the payment of Professors bjing ministers 
 of the Church." But the $2,000 in the Bill is an additional sum 
 of $2,000, not authorised in any way, a complete violation, in fact, 
 of the Act of Incorporation. The proof is easy. In 18G4, Mr. 
 Snodgrass became Principal of Queen's College, and applied for a 
 grant of $2,000 over and above the sura to be paid for the allow- 
 ances of Professors being ministers of the Church. The answer was 
 in these words. 1 am reading from the official minutes of the 
 Board. 
 
 " The case of the application of Queen's College was taken up, when the 
 Board agreed to record their understanding ; 
 
 " Ist. — That the commutation of stipend, whether made by ministers hav- 
 ing charges, or being Professors, having been personal, the stipend derived 
 from it should continue to be enjoyed by those who commuted while they 
 continue in the service of the Church, whether in charges or in the college. 
 
 " 2nd, — In the event of there being commuting ministers in Queen's College 
 whose stipends, together amount to £500 per annum, no additional payment 
 shall be made to the college by the Board. 
 
 " 3rd.— In the event of there not being commuting ministers in the college 
 receiving salary from the Board to the amount of £500 per annum, the Board 
 shall make up the deficiency." 
 
11. 
 
 Now, the amount ill June, 187") wlicn tlie break up look i»lace,pay- 
 ahle to Professors being ministers of the Church, was SI, !)oO, leaving 
 ii?')() more to make up tlie $2,000. So far as tlie accounts s'low, tlie 
 payment of 1? I, DoO has continued, plus the ilh^gal payment of J?2,00() 
 makin|jj in all Ji?^i,0r)O which you are asked to sanction, and thi^j 
 additional S2,000 a year you are asked to secure by letting tho 
 authorities of Queen's (voUege draw at once from the fund a capi- 
 tal suin of ui)vvar(ls of S.33,()00. Not satisfied with this, authority 
 was also taken to pay Morrin College $HoO a year, representing a 
 capital sum of about $14,000, or in other words, you are asked to 
 sanction a withdrawal from the already dilapidated capital of 
 $47,000 for payments which are entirely illegal. 
 
 Having dealt with the (luestion of procedure, let mc call the at- 
 tention of the Committee to certain statements of the promoters of 
 the Bills, before I go'to the root of the matter. They state, it is, in 
 fact, stated under oath, that in all Presbyterian churches, majori- 
 ties rule and minorities must submit. Where is the proof of what 
 the Privy Council calls " a startling proposition ? " Are these 
 gentlemen talking of a christian church, or of a horde of commu- 
 nists ? Christianity itself is founded on principles the very reverse 
 of this, and the Church of Scotland is too scriptural a Church to 
 hold so unchristian an error. It might be held, l)y taking de- 
 tached passages, that the Free Church hold this view, as, for in- 
 stance, in the claim of rights, where they hold that Church courts 
 can by majorities and by their own inherent power interpret tho 
 laws of the land, and by the protest lodged before the majority, as 
 they held, left the church of Saotland aud formed a new Church. 
 The seceders state in that protest, that the Civil Courts held, that 
 they have power to supersede the majority of a church court of the 
 establishment, that is of the Church to which we belong. If the 
 promoters of the Bill hold that majorities rule in every thing, it is an 
 additional proof that these gentlemen have adopted the doctrines 
 of the Free Church. In every deliberative body a majority rule^^ 
 in matters within its competency, that is, in ordinary matters of 
 management, 
 
 A Member. — Do you maintain that a majority does not rule in 
 all Presbyterian bodies ? 
 
 Mr. BiiYMXER. — Would you allow me, it is a privilege Scotch- 
 men have, to answer one question by asking another ? Parlia- 
 ment decides all questions by majorities. Can Parliament set 
 aside the Confederation Act of 1867 by any majority ? There is 
 no such power in majorities as these gentlemen assert. In ordin- 
 ary affairs of management, majorities decide, but our creed — the 
 Confession of Faith — is rigid and unalterable. May I ask the 
 Committee, sir, to think what the proposition means ? Now wo 
 have a steadfast creed, but if the new rule laid down be correct, 
 then our beliefs are at the mercy of any chance clerical majority, 
 which can regulate our faith and compel us to accept new dogmas. 
 
under penalty, if wo refuse to follow them in their vagaries, of 
 being driven out of our churches, and losing all our church privi- 
 leges. We go to bed at night holding one set of doctrines, we 
 rise next morning bound to hold a totally different set, because 
 the clerical majority of a Synod chooses to decide so. It won't 
 do to say in this case there has been no change — that may or may 
 not be so, but the power of majorities is, by the theory absolute, 
 and can enforce any chr.nge. It has be<'n asked with a sneer, and 
 constantly repeated, suppose one man remained, would he lepre- 
 sent the Church ;' I say, emphatically, yes. Surely in a Christian 
 community and dealing with a Christian Church we may appeal to 
 the Bible, our rule of fa'.th. It is singular how often the despised 
 one mar. appears. The one man at Mount Carmel, against 850; 
 the one man at the fatal union of Jehosaphat and Ahab, against 
 400, into whom a lying spirit had entered. Principal Grant 
 lays it down as the law that in our Church majorities always rule, 
 and he further told the Committee that his Providence was the 
 voice of the people. By that law, in the last sad week of our 
 Saviour's life on earth, had Principal Grant formed one of tho 
 multitude thronging to see the entry of our Lord into Jerusalem 
 on a colt, the foal of an ass, he would have been bound to throw 
 up his cap and shout Hosannah, but he would have been e([ually 
 bound to have cried out with the same mob, " Away with him, 
 crucify him." What a wise old man John Bunyan was. He has 
 a vivid portrait of just such a man as Principal Grant, Mr. By- 
 ends, in the " Pilgrim's Progress." Here are that gentleman's 
 maxims : 1. We never strive against wind and tide ; 2. We are 
 always most zealous when religion goes in his silver slippers ; wo 
 love much to walk with him in the street, if the sun shines and the 
 people applaud him. That gentleman believed in majorities. His 
 Providence was the voice of the people. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Boyd. — There is a largo portrait gallery by Bunyan. 
 There is Mr. Perversity for instance. 
 
 Mr. Bhymner. — Yes, we can all find our portraits there. A 
 little touch of Ithuriel's spear would make us think our own 
 rather distorted from what we believed them. But let me quote 
 what the Privy Council says on this point. Their Lordships state 
 that the respondents maintain, by the second of two objections, 
 that the appellant (Rev. Mr. Dobie acting for the Church) is barred 
 from challenging the Act of 1875, by the resolutions of the majority 
 of the Synod, which are said to be binding upon him and 
 continue, 
 
 ** The second objection is derived from the resohitions in favour of union 
 carried by the majority of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, 
 in connection with the Church of Scotland, on the 14th June, 1875. The 
 Quebec Act, 38 Vic. , cap. 04, deals with the Temporalities' Fund in confor- 
 mity with these resolutions, and it is the contention of the respondents that 
 the appellant is bound by the resolutions, and cannot, therefore, impeach 
 
10 
 
 the statuto which ;;ivos Hlloct to thoiii. That i.s h startling proposition. . . 
 It i»'ay he doulitod whuthor a court of hiw wouKl sustain such an 
 obligation, even if it woroexpres«ly uiuU'rtaken ; hut it is unnucossary to dis- 
 cuss that point, because their Lordships are of opinion that tlie rosponlents 
 have failed to establish that the appellant as a member of the Presbyterian 
 Church, in connection with the Church of Scotland, undertook any obligation 
 to that efl'ect. " 
 
 V/ith Huch a decision and willi all tliatcan 1)0 adduced, it woiilfl 
 need tlic .strongest, clearest })root' tliat any such power exists in 
 majorities in our (Jhurcb. Has there been any produced ? I 
 know of none. I can say positively that there is none. Tiie next 
 ])oint to which T wisli to call attention is a very sint^ular one, in 
 a country in which all sendjlance of connection Ijetween ( 'iiurcli 
 and State has been declared at an end. Tlie people who have 
 joined another Churcii declare that they have made no change in 
 doctrine. How can we discuss theological points before a civil 
 Coniuiittee which does not undertand our doctrines ? Even 
 many professed Presbyterians do not understand and have never 
 studied the doctrines regarding which they pretend to speak. 
 We are told that we ought to unite because we have a connnon 
 Presbyterianism. What do people understand by that vague ex- 
 pression — a common Presbyterianism ? It is simply a form of 
 church government. It has nothing positive to do with doctrines. 
 On the one side stands the Church of Scotland, to which we be- 
 long, on the other, thirty or forty different Presbyterian sects. 
 One Honourable Senator admitted on Monday that different 
 bodies of Presbyterians held different doctrines, which .so far is 
 evidence of the correctness of my statement. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Boyd. — I said that they held ditferent views. 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — I understood the honourable gentleman to say 
 difierent doctrines, but if they hold different views of doctrine, it 
 practically comes to the same thing. If, however, we ought to 
 unite by virtue of a common Presbyterianism, surely members of 
 this Committee who have a common Episcopalianism ought also 
 to unite, for a similar reason, and show us a good example. Sup- 
 pose adherents of the Greek Church and the Roman Cs'tholic 
 Chui ch should have a question like this before Parliament, would 
 it be necessary for them to discuss the Jilioque, the doctrine of the 
 procession of the Holy Spirit, or failing in this, that the minority 
 should lose its rights. Is it not notorious that these are two dis- 
 tinct Churches ? Is it not equally notorious that our Church and 
 the Church that the promoters of the Bills have joined are two 
 distinct and separate Churches ? The Roman, Greek, Anglican, 
 Episcopal Methodist, and the latest born, the Reformed Episcopal, 
 all call themselves Catholic, as we do. On the ground of a com- 
 mon Catholicity, should we not all be compelled to join as you are 
 trying to compel us to join a mass of Presbyterian sects. Dissen- 
 ters in Scotland, by a similar process of reasoning, should be com- 
 pelled to join the Church of Scotland ; and Roman Catholics in 
 
17 
 
 Kiicfl'iiid liavo no riLflit to exist oat of tlie Cliurcli of Kni^Iand. 
 Tlio reasoning' is as <^co(l in Llie one case as in tlie other. It was 
 tried in Scotland, not successfully ; it lias been tried in Ireland 
 with little encouragement to continue the experiment. Scotch- 
 men are not to be coerced in matters of this kind, and I think, 
 sir, most people will admit, thc^y are a hard lot to try such force 
 with. But wliilst 1 point out the impropriety of expectinfif such 
 <liseussions, I am not afraid to face them. I have no intcsntion of 
 <3ntering on a theolonrical exposition, but this Committee will, T 
 liope, be satisfied if I show a change in obligation. In 184'4, the 
 first secession from our (Church in Canada took [)lace, when those 
 Ave are asked to Join left, declaring that ourCJhurch was no longer 
 a, Church of (Jhrist, but a mere creature of the State. These peo- 
 ple left ])ehlnd a protest. Part of this I am going to read, and I 
 ask the Connnittee to hear the extracts patiently. The pream- 
 ble t) this protest says : — 
 
 "Whereas the Churcli, as the divinely conatituteJ Depository anrl Guar- 
 dian of Revealed Truth, is specially bound to lift up her testimony for those 
 l)articular truths which are at any time endanyered or overborne by the an- 
 tagonist powers of the world ; 
 
 " And Whereas those great and fundamental truths which respect the su- 
 premacy of Christ in His Church, the spiritual independence of her rulers, 
 their exclusive responsibility to her Great Head, the rights and privileges of 
 His people, and the proper relation which should subsist between the Church 
 and the State, are at the present day endangered, and have actually been 
 overborne in the Established Church of Scotland through recent encroach- 
 ments of the State, upon the spiritual province, submitted to by her." 
 
 A ^Iember. — What have we to do with these quarrels ? 
 
 ^[r. BiiYMNER. — I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the Com- 
 mittee has anything to do with them, but I submit, that our 
 opponents, having made certain allegations, we must meet them. 
 The protest goes on : — 
 
 " And Whereas the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in con- 
 •nection with the Church of Scotland, apart from all considerations of a gene- 
 ral kind, which should have led them to testify against the defections and 
 corruptions of the said Established Church, were specially bound to do so, 
 because of their connection with said Church ; 
 
 " And Whereas, the due and proper testimony against the defections and 
 corruptions of the said Established Church of Scotland was a termination of 
 the peculiarly close and intimate connection in which the Synod stood to 
 her ; 
 
 " And Whereas it has been in an orderly and constitutional way proposed 
 to this Synod, having been made the subject of petitions and overtures of 
 congregations and presbyteries, whilst it has been advocated by many of the 
 members, that this Synod should terminate its connection with said'Church, 
 and alter its designation accordingly ; 
 
 " And Whereas, this Synod, by the vote of a majority of its members, 
 came to the decision that it sh.ill not terminate said connection, nor take 
 other such action as is required." 
 
 These two last clauses, sir, should settle, I think, the question 
 as to whether there existed or not, a connection with the Church 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 of Scotlatul <»f a vory closo character, althouj^li one lino torn from 
 tli(; context is used l>y our ()[)[)onoiit.s to prove there never wan 
 any. I'lit if the (!(tniiiiittee j^'ive uje time, I shall come to that 
 point at'terwar<!s. There are sovon reasons ^'ivon in the Trotest. 
 I sliall (piote two. 
 
 The Syno<l refused to sever its crmnectlon with the Churcli of 
 Scotland, and upon that point the Protest says : — 
 
 ** First. — That in our couHcioiitidiiH convictinn, this Syiuid aro thorohy 
 j^iviny their virtual Hanctioii to tho procoduro of tlio E-stablishi'd Churcli of 
 Sc(jtlaii(l in tlio groat (juustioiia at \nn\w botwoon that Ch»n-ch ami tho Frco 
 Prote8tinj» ('hurch of Scotland, and londiiiLC tho weii^ht of thoir iiiHuonco, aH 
 a Church, to tho support of principloH which arc inconipatiblo with tho purity 
 and liberty of any (.'hurch by which they Jiro allowod— and which aro fitted 
 at tho Hatne time to do grievous injury to the cause of tho Rodeomor through- 
 out tho world. 
 
 " Fourth. — That by leaving an open door for tho admission of minister* 
 and elders from the KHtabliaheil Church of Scotland, holding unso\nul viewf* 
 on the great principles aforesaid, thoy have most serioiisly endangered the 
 purity of the Church, and brought even her indepundenco into peril, through 
 the probable introduction of Ollico bearers, prepared to submit to the same 
 encroachments of tho Civil Power by which the Church of Scotland has boeu 
 enslaved." 
 
 Well, sir, I am one of these elders whose admission was so- 
 carefully ;L,niar<led against. I was an elder in a parish in Scotland, 
 and for twenty-five years I have been an elder in tho Church of 
 Scotland in Canada. J have brou^dit all the.se danjjerous doctrines 
 with me, and am expected without explanation or withdrawal of 
 the charges to submit meekly to enter a Church which refuses to 
 receive me and my brethren. 
 
 A Memi5ER. — It is the duty of a Christian to forgive. 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — I only follow the example of that true Chris- 
 tian gentleman, St. Paul, who when publicly scourged and dragged 
 to prison at Philippi, refused to come out privily, l)ut insisted 
 that the magistrates should publicly atone for the outrage publicly 
 committetl. There stands the record of the charge against us. 
 Let that be as publicly withdrawn as it was made, but that must 
 first be done before there is a possibility of even speaking about 
 union. The Protest further goes on : 
 
 " Wherefore for all these and other reasons, we solemnly protest to this 
 venerable court, before G(jd, the Church of Christ, and the world, that it is 
 OUT conscientious belief that in respect of the premises, sin in matters funda- 
 mental has been done by this court ; and that while at the same time we con- 
 tinue to adhere to the Confession of Faith and other Standards of this Church, 
 we can yet no longer, with a clear conscience, hold office in the Presbyterian 
 Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland." 
 
 Before I go further, let me point out that in 1844, when the 
 first secession took place, the motion to sever the connection with 
 the Church of Scotland was to make the severance by giving up 
 the designation *' in connection with the Church of Scotland, and 
 that the peculiar connection which has hitherto subsisted betweei> 
 
ID 
 
 of 
 
 we cou- 
 yhurch, 
 )yterian 
 
 ing up 
 lid, and 
 etweeft 
 
 thorn and tho aforesaid Cliurclj of Scotland slmll from tins time foHli 
 ceasu iiiifl dctcrmiiK!, and tli.it any peculiar piivilcL^es that may 
 liave h<}un understood to hclon^' in virtue of tliat connection to 
 her ministerH and oKk'rs Heeivin^,' admission into this (jlnirch, shall, 
 in like maiuu^', he withdrawn." May I ask the Committee to 
 ohservo that the promoters of the Hill followe*! exactly the line 
 maiked out for them l»y their predecessors in secession. They 
 ahandoned tlm desi^niation "in connection witli the Chuich of 
 ScotlamI," ajid are now known, that is notorious, as the " I'roshy- 
 terian (Jhurch in Canada," and the hasis of uidon shows that all 
 privile^^es have been withdrawn from ministers and ehlers of the 
 Church of Scotland. It is not coirol»orativ(» oidy, hut is clear and 
 direct proof of their secession. The (Jliureh of Scotland, then, was 
 charge<l witl- holdini,^ Krastian doctrines. 
 
 A Mi'^MUKR. — What do you mean hy Erastian doctrines. 
 
 Mr. Bkymneii. — The doctrine that the Church was a moro 
 machine in the hands of the State ; that the civil nui^dstrate 
 could control it?^ whole action, order tin; adnunistration of tlwi 
 sacraments, and so forth. It was a rebound a^'ainst the unlimite<l 
 pretensions of the clei'^^y, and as usual, went from one extreme to 
 another. 1 need scarcely say that our (/hurch, the Church of 
 Scotland, never held such a doctrine, althoui^h, for effect, it was 
 charged with holding Erastian principles, and [Kirt of the obligation 
 taken by those who lirst seceded was in reality a denunciation of 
 the Church to which we belong. 1 engaged to show that there 
 had been a change of obligation in respect to our creed*. Let mo 
 then refer, first to the formula, or ol)ligation, to be .signed by 
 every minister and elder of our Church. There is no need to 
 trouble you, sir, with more than tlie first clause, which .says : 
 
 I, , do hereby declare that I do .sincerely own and believe the 
 
 whole doctrine contained in the Confeaaion of Faith, approved by the General 
 Asseinbliea of the Church of Scotland, and ratiKed by law in the year lOlK), 
 and fre<[uently contirnied by divei'a Acta of Parliament aince that time, to bo 
 the trutha of God, and 1 do own the aiime as the confeaaion of my faith, &g." 
 
 That is the formula I signed at my ordination as an elder. The 
 formula to be signed, before the formation of the New Church, by 
 the members of the Free Church, or Canada Presbyterian Church, 
 which we are asked to join, is : 
 
 "I,- 
 
 -, do hereby declare that I do aincerely own and believe the 
 
 whole doctrine contained in the Weatniinater Confeaaion of Faith, as 
 approved by the Church of Scotland, in the year one thousand six hundred 
 and forty-seven, to be the truth of God, &c." 
 
 We are told that there is no change in doctrine because both 
 we and those who left adhere to the whole Confession of Faith. 
 How many can tell, or even think of, the meaning of the omis- 
 sion in the second formula. Why, it indicates a difference as 
 high as Heaven between the two Churches, between the constitu- 
 tional position of the Church of Scotland, observing the due re- 
 
20 
 
 lationa botwcon tlio functions of the Church an'l Stat'\ and tlio 
 |>ret«>nHions of tho Froo (.'hurch to wliat is calhiil spiritual iii- 
 (Icpentlonini, tiiat is, in njality, ecclusiastical supremacy. In t\vi 
 questions put to otHco l)earors at onlination tlu; one in our (Jliurch 
 is: "J)oyou disown all Popish" — (A lauj^di.) you sec, sir, that 
 we must disown all errors, Arian, Socinian, Armenian and liour- 
 i;^'nian doctrines, \:c. (Lau«^hter.) 
 
 A Mkmukk. — What are Iiouri;;nian doctrines? 
 Mr. IJliYMNKH. — A set of doctrines very nuicii in vogue now- 
 a-ilays. They come from the old allianct! hetween tho French 
 and tho Scotch. Thi»y aro .so poj)ular now that, I suppose, on 
 the theory that majorities rule, the Free Churcli did not like 
 to insist on an ol)li;,'ation n^aiinst tlu^m, so they suhstit Jted the 
 word Frastian for Bourignian, as a safe |)opular exchange. The 
 IJourignian doctrine is, that a man may he a christian without 
 luiving faith " exhibiting it by good works. This ipiestion was 
 changed, as I have just said, by the Free Church, who after tin- 
 other errors to be disowned, given in the (piestions I liave just read, 
 ex))unged the word liourignian and sui)stituted Erastian — that 
 is, took an obligation from tluir olHce-bearers, that they would have 
 nothing to do with the Churcli of Scotland — that is the plain 
 meaning of the diange. Principal (Jrant has stated that the ex- 
 I)!anatory clause in the second article of the basis of union is mere- 
 ly a gloss, and that a law is not changed by an explanation. He 
 .says the statement is true and that they would have been very 
 Htid)born had they refused to accept that clause as a true explana- 
 tion of a point on which there were differences of opinion. That 
 is, at least, ingenious, but the esoteric, the hidden meaning of that 
 clause is, that those who made the charge against us in 1844 of 
 holding pernicious doctrines, insisted that the charge was true, and 
 that those who had joined it since then must purge themselves by 
 an explicit denial that they held the doctrines the Church was 
 charged with holding in 1844. That is the meaning of this inno- 
 cent gloss. Principal Grant is very fond of analogies. Let me use 
 one in this case. A jealous lover, engaged to be married, insists 
 that before the marriage takes place his betrothed shall make an 
 open, public and solemn declaration that she is pure and innocent. 
 The prospective bride could no doubt truthfully state so, but it is 
 not likely that any marriage would take place under the circum- 
 stances. Well, it may be said that an oblig?.ti'^n v/as tak-^n in both 
 cases to own and believe the whole confession of Faith, but another 
 change was made when these people joined the new Church into 
 which we are invited — the Presbyterian Church in Canada. The 
 formula in that Church is : 
 
 " I hereby declare that I believe the Westmimtor Confeasion of Faith, a^ 
 adopted by this Church in the Basis of Union. 
 
 If there was no change of Creed, that is in the Confession of Faith , 
 
 t 
 I 
 
 w 
 ( 
 
 tH 
 
 A\' 
 
tl 
 
 1 tho 
 il iii- 
 
 Imrcli 
 , tlwit 
 IJour- 
 
 now- 
 
 oso, on 
 ot like.' 
 ,ed tho 
 . The 
 t'ithout 
 on was 
 ter tlu- 
 ist read, 
 n — that 
 lid bavo 
 10 plain 
 tho ox- 
 is uiero- 
 on. Ho 
 pon very 
 3xplana- 
 . That 
 cT of that 
 ''1844 of 
 true, and 
 solves by 
 irch was 
 ,his innc- 
 it me nso 
 id, insists 
 make an 
 innocent, 
 but it is 
 e circum- 
 n in ]:'Oth 
 t another 
 urch into 
 .da. The 
 
 ,[ Faith, a'i 
 
 of Faith , 
 
 or in tho intorprotation of tlio Confossion of Faitli, wliy was this 
 most oxtrnonlinaiy chaii^'o in tin* oMJi^fation rospcctin;,' it intro- 
 duced. It took yrars to come to a compromise of tlio )>rinciplos 
 lnld l)y one, or l)y itoth churolios. It is surely fair to ask if tlioro 
 has l)oen no cliani^e mudo by tiu' promoters of tho Hill when tlioy 
 ji)in«'(l the new ( 'liiircli, vviio did make a chan;;e ? Has tho Canada 
 I'rosbytcrian (.'liurch nbaiidoncd its distinctive piinciplos ? Have 
 these who loft us and joint'd tliat Cliurcb done so i One t)r both 
 must have clian^a'd, but as for us, wo have made no olian^o, wo re- 
 main tho same ns wo have always boon and refuse to aek now led <.(«) 
 that either wo or our Church havo bo"n ;,'uilty of tho sins laid to 
 our char^fo by thosi^ whom wo are to bo compelled to join, if thcs(> 
 laws can compel us. 
 
 A Mkmhku. — Why did so many nurustors <,'o into union, then ? 
 
 Mr. JiiiYMNKii. — VVoll, I don't exactly like to u.so tho word that 
 would describe the proces.s. I will toll you what took j)laoo. It was 
 proposed to secure to every minister of our Synod, whether entitled 
 to boon tho Fund or not,$^*2()() a year for life. My friend Mr. McLean, 
 when the question came up, pointed oiit that tho fund would not 
 allow of it, and the clause was withdrawn. Tho nnnisters de- 
 clared that unless the two bundled dollar annuity was secured to 
 tiiem, they would not vote for the union, and in tho evening the 
 clause to secure that was restored. It is for tho Committee, sir, to 
 give that i)rocess a name — 1 must bo excused from doing so. 1 
 now come to the (picstion of tho identity of the new Church with 
 the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church 
 of Scotland. When that j;oint was raised, Piincipal Grant made a 
 flippant analogy, saying that a nuin did not lose his identity by 
 marrying, and when ronundod that it was a case of marrying 
 three wives, he Hung back tho retort that Solomon had married 
 more than three wives and yet had not lost his identity. Anal- 
 ogies aro dangerous things, and in this case it seems to me that 
 the true analogy would bo that of a married man with a family, who 
 took up with three strange women, deprived his wife of her support, 
 declared his children illegitimate, and denied them the name they 
 were entitled to bear. As for Solomon, his wives led him from 
 the true worship to a change of doctrine; and I only hope that 
 these gentlemen may repent as bitterly as did tho once wise king 
 who was led away by forming illicit connections. (Laughter). 
 But you aro told, sir, that this identity is proved by the declara- 
 tions of the Chui-clu'S, and Principal Grant stated that tho first 
 thing done by fcho United Church was to declare itself identical 
 with the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the 
 Church of Scotlamb I see that the learned principal has changed 
 that in his " revised version," in which he is made to say simply 
 that it was read aloud. I have here, Mr. Chairman, the official 
 minutes of the first General Assembly of the United Churcb, 
 which shows a very different state of things from that described 
 
22 
 
 by Principal Grant. Tlie Oanarla P»-:.,-)bytei'iA:^ Church (the Free 
 Church) first declared tliat tlie new Churcli w.as identical with it; 
 then followed the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of the Lower 
 Province, declarin^r the new Church identical with it; then the 
 majority of the Synod of the Presbyterian (jhurch of the Mari- 
 time Provinces in connection with the (Jhureh of Scotland, de- 
 claring the new Church identical with it ; and last of all the 
 majority of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of (Janada in 
 connection with the Church of Scotland, declaring the new Church 
 identical with it. Things that are equal to the same thing are 
 e(iual to one another. But here were four dissimilar things not only 
 equal to one common thing, but all identical with it, whilst at the 
 .same time tliat they were eneh identical with it, they were all 
 difterent from each other. The Athanasian creed is an easy hand- 
 book for infant readers as compared with this. 1 remeniber, sii', 
 that some few years ago there was a young coloured woman with 
 two heads, known as the two-headed nightingale, who sang duets 
 all by herself. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Sutherland. — 1 think such comments are uncalled 
 for, and that you should merely give your evidence. 
 
 Mr. BiiYMNEK. — I was flattering myself that I had been very 
 sparing of comment, and had stuck closely to my argument. I 
 appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, if I have trespassed in any way, or 
 indulged in irrelevant talk. It is sometimes convenient to draw 
 a parallel, and it places any speaker at a serious disadvantage to 
 be hampered by rules not imposed on our o})ponents. 
 
 The Chairman. — for myself, gentlemen, I think the speaker 
 has not violated any rule. All I would say to you, sir, is not to 
 occupy more time than you can help, and in this case I do not, so 
 far, see any fault to be Ibund. 
 
 Mr. Brymner. — Well, sir, in this case we have a four-headed 
 monster, a full quartette. The chorus begins " we are identical," 
 the solo of each Church takes up th'> strain, reciting its own 
 name ; uniting again in the one grand cht>rus — " and possesses 
 the same authority, rights, privileges and benefits to which this 
 Church is now entitled," and winding up with the very, very 
 base solo by the majority of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church 
 of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, " excepting 
 such as have been reserved by Acts of Parliament." There is no 
 such ca.se on record .since the days of Ananias and Sapphira, who 
 pretended to lay the price of their po.sse.s.sions at the feet of the 
 apostles — with a similar reservation. Having, I hope, prov^ed 
 that even if the Synod had the power our opponents maintain it 
 had, to destroy the constitution of the Church and destroy the 
 Trusts under which its ])ropcrty is held, the majority did not do 
 so constitutionally, according to the rules of the Church itself ; 
 that majorities have no power to alter the doctrines or constitu- 
 tion of the Church ; that there are differences of doctrine amonn^ 
 
 the 
 
 pla 
 ref^ 
 bia 
 onf 
 
23 
 
 ical," 
 own 
 sesses 
 this 
 very 
 liurch 
 L'pting 
 is no 
 who 
 of the 
 )ro\^ed 
 tain it 
 oy the 
 iot do 
 itself ; 
 
 the religious organizations known fis Presbyterian, and especially 
 between the Church of Scotland and those we ai'c asked to join; 
 and that by joining the new Church, those who did so, lost their 
 identity with the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection 
 with the Church of Scotland. I shall now take up the real points 
 that, I feel, should have been })resented, and which we ])re;>ented 
 in their legal as])ect before this Committee and before the Com- 
 mittee of the House of Connnons. It is from the ecclesiastical 
 point of view that I have been called on to speak, and I shall try 
 to stick closely to that. The first, then, is the relation of the 
 Synod to the fund, which, I maintain, was one of supervision 
 only, the Synod having neither proprietorship in it, nor control 
 over it, the sole power of the Synod being to see that the Trus- 
 tees acted according to the terms of the Trust and did not alienate 
 or misappropriate the funds for which they were responsible. 
 Now, sir, may I ask you to look at the terms of the Act of Inde- 
 pendence, of which so 1 uch has been made, to prove that there 
 never was any connection with the Church of Scotland, by virtue 
 of one line, taken from the context, the context itself having no 
 reference whatever to the Church, but only to the Synod or com- 
 mittee created by the (Jhurch to watch over its intei'ests. Let me 
 ask you to notice the exact terms of this Act, which is called "An 
 Act declaring the Spiritual Independence of the Synod of the 
 Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of 
 Scotland." The Act goes on : — 
 
 " Whereas this Synod has always, from its first establishment, possessed a 
 perfectly free and supreme jurisdiction over all the congregations and minis- 
 ters in connection therewith ; and although the independence and freedom 
 of this Synod, in regard to all things spiritual, cannot be called in question, 
 but has been repeatedly and in most explicit terms affirmed, not only by it- 
 self, but by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, yet, as in pre- 
 sent circumstances, it is expedient that this independence be asserted and 
 declared by a special Act. 
 
 "It is then^fore hereby declared, that this Synod has always claimed and 
 possessed, does now possess, and ought always, in all time coming, to have 
 and exercise a perfectly free, full, final, supreme and uncontrolled power of 
 jurisdiction, discipline and government, in regard to all matters, ecclesiasti- 
 cal and spiritual, over all the ministers, elders, Church members and congre- 
 gations under its care, without the right of review, appeal, complaint or 
 reference, by or to any other Court or Courts whatsoever, in any form or 
 under any pretence ; and that in any case that may come before it for judg- 
 ment, the decisions and deliverances of this Synod shall be final. And this 
 Synod further declares, that if any encroachments on this supreme power 
 and authority shall be threatened, by any person or persons. Court or Courts 
 whatsoever, then the Synod, and each and every member thereof, shall, to 
 the utmost of their power, resist and oppose the same." 
 
 I shall take up the definition of the connection in its proper 
 place, but I ask you, sir, to no^^ice that the Church is never once 
 referred to in the whole of this declaration. Stripped of all ver- 
 biage, it simply means that the Synod, as a Church Court, can 
 •enforce ecclesiastical discipline in regard to its members ; that, if 
 
21 
 
 for instance, it comes to a decision with loforoncc to a breach of 
 ecclesiastical law, or a charge of immorality or any other oftenco 
 charged against any of its members, that there is no appeal to any 
 higher ecclesiastical Court. That it gave neither ])roprietorship 
 in nor control over the fund in question, is evident from the very 
 terms of the resolutions come to in January, 1855, when the fund 
 was proposed to be constituted. The Synod " enti-eated " the 
 ministers commuting to grant powers of attorney to the commis- 
 sioner, to draw their commutation money from the Government, 
 "as to a measure by which, under Providence, not only their own 
 present interests will be secured, but a permanent endowment for 
 the maintenance and extension of relijifious ordinances in the 
 Church." The view then was, that the money belonged to the 
 individual ministers, and they were " entreated " to give it for a 
 permanent endowment to the Church. I need not dwell on that 
 point now, as I hope to prove it by other evidence. The func- 
 tions of Synods and Councils are defined in the thirty-first 
 chapter of the Confession of Faith, which we all accept, but 
 which, I suppose, there is no necessity to detain the Committee 
 by reading. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Trudel. — If you have it there, perhaps you had bet- 
 ter read it. 
 
 Mr. BiiYMNER. — The third and fifth clauses of the chapter are 
 those which specify the functions of Synods, but as it is not very 
 long, perhaps I had better read the whole chapter. It says : — 
 
 '* I. For the better government, and further edification of the Church^ 
 there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or (^oun' 
 cils. 
 
 "II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit 
 persona, to consult and advise with about matters of religion ; so if magis- 
 trates be open enemies of the Church, the minigters of Christ, of themselves, 
 by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from 
 their churches, may meet together in such assemblies." 
 
 The next clause shows what are the subjects to be brought 
 before these assemblies. 
 
 " III. It belongeth to the Synods and Councils ministerially to determine 
 controversies of faith, and cases of conscience , to set down rules and direc- 
 tions for the better ordering of the piiJjblick worship of God and government 
 of His Church ; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and 
 authoritatively to determine the same ; which decrees and determinations, if 
 consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and sub- 
 mission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power 
 whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto 
 in His Word. 
 
 " IV. All Synods and Councils since the apostles' times, whether general 
 or particular, may err, and many have erred ; therefore they are not to be 
 made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both. 
 
 "V. Synods and Councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which 
 is ecclesiastical ; and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs, which concern 
 the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition, in cases extraordinary • 
 or by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto re- 
 quired by the civil magistrate." 
 
lo 
 
 and 
 
 I think, sir, tliat this chapter scarcely supports the pretentioi'm^ 
 of the pi-oinoters of the Bills before you. Instead, however, of 
 arguing upon the terms of the definition, it will, perhaps, be better 
 for me to show the interpretation the Synod itself j)ut on its 
 powers and how it regarded the teachings of this chapter. After 
 the Synod, in connection with the ( 'hurch of Scotland, hatl been 
 formed, Sir John Colborne wanted the allowances from the (Jlergy 
 Reserve to be paid over to it, and placed under its control. This 
 control the Synod refused to accej^t, the resolution passed in 183G 
 being in these terms : 
 
 "And it is further submitted, whether the Synod, as being a Spiritual 
 Court, ought not to decline the distribution among its members of any boun- 
 ty the Government may be pleased to confer, which ought to be managed by 
 the Government itself as heretofoie, or by lay commissioners appointed fur 
 that purpose." 
 
 A similar resolution was passed in 1837, which I need not read, 
 unless any one asks me. I have taken these two resolutions 
 somewhat out of chronological order, which I prefer to follow, 
 unless, as in this case, adherence to it wouM destroy the clearness 
 of the proof I am anxious to give. Mr. Morris, the learned coun- 
 sel for the promoters of the Bills before you, sir, stated that our 
 Church was formed in consecjuence of a letter from Sir George 
 Murray, Colonial Secretary, to Sir John Colborne, Lieutenant- 
 ■ Governor of Upper Canada ; that it was formed on his authority 
 to be a Union Church in which were to be included all Presby- 
 terian ministers in Canada, of all sects, and that acting on this 
 direction union of all these ministers did take place. The 
 argument was, in fact, that being founded as a Union Church the 
 present Union is the logical outcome of that. Now, sir, I don't 
 feel that I would be proud of belonging to a Church created by a Col- 
 onial Secretary through a Lieutenant-Governor. As a matter of fact 
 the Church existed in Canada from a time shortly after the ces- 
 sion in 1760. When the Clergy Reserve allowances were granted 
 to the ministers of the Church of Scotland on the ground of h'^- 
 longing to one of the national Churches, Presbyterian ministers, 
 not entitled to a share in the Reserves, were constantly applying 
 also. To get rid of the trouble and annoyance of dealing with 
 individual cases. Sir George Murray suggested that a Presbytery or 
 Synod should be formed, to be a means of communication between 
 the Government and ministers, and to recommend those who should 
 receive assistance from the Government, in the same way as Roman 
 Catholic priests were recommended by the Catholic Bishop. Sir 
 George suggested that all Presbyterian clergy should be admitted 
 to this Synod, if such a measure could be accomplished, and Mi- 
 Morris says the suggestion was complied with. But, however able 
 Mr. Morris may be as a lawyer, he is not thoroughly up in ecclesias- 
 tical history. Had that learned gentleman looked down the page- 
 from which he quoted, he would have found the answer given l)y 
 
 X 
 
26 
 
 tlie ineinl>ers of the newly formed Synod immediately following 
 the suf^'gestion, that whilst they recognised the convenience to the 
 (Jovei'nment of the plan of union proposed, they " think it inexpe- 
 dient to proceed to tlu; consideration or formation of a connection 
 with any Presbyterian ministers not in communion with the 
 Church of Scotland, until thoy shall obtain further information." 
 A cou])le of minutes will, if the Connnittee do not object, dispose 
 of the statement that our Church was founded as a Union Churcli, 
 and that these gentlemen who have left us are cariying out that 
 intention. The body which the Colonial Secretary recommended 
 should be united with the niinisters of our Church into one Synod, 
 was known as the United Synod of U|)per Canada. It was chiefly 
 composed of ministers from the North of Ireland, whose congre- 
 gations in Canada were adherents, nearly all, of the (church of 
 Scotland, because we had not a sufficient number of ministers to 
 occuj>y these charges. It was on that ground their claim to the 
 Clergy Reserves was really macie. They attempted to frame a 
 Basis ol Union, but were told that the only ground of admission 
 would be adherence to the standards of the Church of Scotland 
 and the signing of the obligation prescribed by that Church. A 
 few of them were admitted on com])lying with these terms, and 
 to show the control exercised by the Church of Scotland over the 
 Synod, in respect to the admission of members, I would ask the 
 Committee to look at the memorial sent with respect to these 
 ministers. In a resolution dated 9th October, 1834, our Synod 
 agreed " to memorialize the General Assembly (that is of the 
 Church of Scotland) in the most respectful but urgent manner, 
 soliciting that such members of the United Synod as may have 
 been already admitted, be recognised as ministers of this Church." 
 It need scarcely, I think, be pointed out, that the Church of Scot- 
 land exercised complete control over the Church, whilst leaving 
 complete, free and full jurisdiction to the Synod over its own 
 members, in matters affecting internal discipline. In 1840, the 
 Union, as it is called, took place. There was really no union. 
 The ministers were admitted on taking the vows prescribed by 
 the Church of Scotland ; the United Synod and Presbyteries 
 handed over their books and papers ; the names of the members 
 were added to the Presbytery and Synod rolls of our Church ; 
 there was no change in our constitution, designation, connection 
 or obligations. There was simply an addition made to our num- 
 bers. I have shown how very different was the Union of 1875. 
 I hope I am not tiring the patience of the Committee by reading 
 extracts, and so far as I can, I shall avoid doing so, merely stating 
 the facts. I have proofs at hand, if any statement is challenged. 
 But there are two extracts I would ask the Committee to let me 
 read, as they define the position of the Synod, as being formed to 
 he merely a means of communication and not as either proprie- 
 tors of, or entitled to control the fund which is dealt with in the 
 
 y 
 
'■17 
 
 Bill liefore you. In 1831, wlieii the Synod was funned, a coni- 
 inimication was sent to the Church of Scotland, one ])aragiaph of 
 which says : 
 
 " Your Venerable Assembly knows that there are many external relations 
 and interests of a Church which may be best watched over by a General 
 Court, and that amongst these most interestin*; to tlie churches under the 
 jurisdiction of the Synod, is their right to a share in the lands set apart for 
 the maintenance of a Protestant clergy. Vour memorialists contemplate that 
 all such relations and interests will bo most cilectually, as well as constitu- 
 tionally watched over by the Synod, iind that through it an organ of com- 
 munication between the diti'erent ministers and the Government will be sup- 
 plied, — the want of which the heads of the government have already felt, as 
 may be inferred from a recent despatch from the llight Hon. Sir George 
 Murray, late Secretary to His Majesty for the Colonies, to His Excellency 
 Sir John Colborne, Lieiit. -Governor of Upper Canada, a copy of which dis- 
 jiatch was communicated by His Excellency to one of your Memorialists, and 
 is herewith enclosed. These and other obvious considerations appeared to 
 your memorialists to justify their forming themselves into a Synod." 
 
 So much for the ecclesiastical authorities. In an address to 
 Sir John Colborne, aijreed to on the l.'ith of the same month and 
 year, the ministers and elders jtrc sent say, for it is signed by all 
 the members : 
 
 •' The want of an Ecclf siastical Court to superintend the spiritual interests 
 of our Church in these Provinces, has been long felt, and the formation of 
 such a court will, we humbly trust, through the blessing of Divine Provi- 
 dence, prove instrumental in promoting the great cause of religion and mor- 
 ality. Nor is it, in our estimation, a slight advantage, that the formation of 
 the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada may afl"ord a more direct 
 means of communication with the Government under which we have the 
 hajipiness to live." 
 
 These extracts, sir, support the position I have taken, that the 
 Synod, civilly, is a mere committee of management. I need not 
 detain the Committee, sir, by the proceedings of every year, but 
 it may be well to see the jurisdiction exercised by the Church of 
 Scotland over the Synod, which is denied by our opponents. They 
 say that the Act of Independence of 1844 proves that the Church 
 was always free and independent of the Church of Scotland. We, 
 on the contrary, say that it had nothing to do with the Church ; 
 but that it was simply an assertion that the Synod was entitled 
 to deal with its members, in matters of discipline, etc., with no 
 appeal on their part to a higher ecclesiastical court, or, in fact, if 
 taken literally, to any other court. I respectfully ask the Com- 
 mittee through you, sir, to look at the facts. In 1833, the Church 
 of Scotland prescribed that no minister should be received as a 
 member of the Synod, w^hen first formed, who had not been or- 
 dained by a Presbytery of that Church, and that members of con- 
 gregations of the Church in Canada should be received as mem- 
 bers of the Church of Scotland, when they came to Scotland. The 
 United Synod of Upper Canada, of which I spoke a few minutes 
 ago, could not be admitted to the Synod without the leave of the 
 
28 
 
 General Assoinbly and the Colonial Committee, the Executive 
 (.'ommittee of the Church, interposed repeatedly to prevent min- 
 isters bein<^' admitted. It is true that the Conunittee only *,^avo 
 advice, and much stress has been laid on this word, but I may re- 
 fer to a significant remai'k by Sir John A. Macdonald, in tlio 
 House of Commons, in answer to the Hon. David Mills, regardin<;^ 
 the same word, in which he said, speaking of tlie Privy Council, 
 that their solenm decisions are given by way of advice. The case 
 of a J\Ir. Grigor, in 1834, is a i)roof of this. The Colonial Com- 
 mittee advised that ho should not be admitted as a minister of the 
 Church, on grounds in no way affecting his moral character, and 
 the Synod, obeyed without dispute or discussion. In lS37,the Synod 
 petitioned the General Assendjly of the CHmrch of Scotland for 
 leave to educate young men for the ministry in Canada, a petition 
 which was granted in 1838, the education to be conducted under 
 certain regulations to be j)rescribed by the General Assembly of 
 the Church of Scotland. In 1840, what may be called Responsi- 
 ble Government was granted. After referring to the formation of 
 Synods and other ecclesiastical judicatories in the Colonies, the 
 General Assembly says : " To the Colonial Churches which have 
 been thus oi-ganized, we feel that the spiritual interests of the 
 Scottish population may safely be entrusted — that they no longer 
 require our direct interference — and that whatever benefits wo 
 wish to communicate, may best be conveyed through the office 
 bearers of the different Svnods or Presbyteries." You will observe, 
 sir, that the same character of the Synod is retained here, as every- 
 where, that the Synod is a convenient means of communication 
 between those conferring and those receiving obligations. The 
 Assembly further lays it down, *'that the right of government 
 should not, in ordinary cases, extend beyond the limits of re[)re- 
 sentation," and that, therefore, the Assembly declines all authori- 
 tative jurisdiction, althouirh authorised to address to the Colonial 
 Churches words of counsel and exhortation, of encouragement or 
 reproof. Let me point out also to the words of the General As- 
 sembly's Committee in 1844, the very year of the passing of this 
 so called Act of Independence, The Committee says, that they 
 " cannot recommend to the Assembly to comply with the request 
 of some of their transatlantic brethren, by assuming a direct ap- 
 pellate jurisdiction over the Colonial Churches. The Assembly 
 has formerly distinctly declined this, and the Committee are satis- 
 tied that they have done so on good and sufficient grounds." What 
 view the Church of Scotland took of the connection I shall show 
 in its proper place. I am aware that all this must be tiresome, 
 but the whole strength of our opponents' case lies in the assertion that 
 this was always a free and independent Church ; that the P'und 
 belonged to the Synod and that, therefore, a majority could dis- 
 jiose of it. You will, I hope, allow me to prove in my own way 
 the absolute incorrectness of these statements. The Church had 
 now a Responsible Government, or something akin to it. Did the 
 
29 
 
 bestowal of Rosponsil>lo Goveinmont sever the connection between 
 (Janada and Oreat Britain ? ])i(l tlie bestowal of Kesj)onsible 
 Oovernnient sever the connection between tlio ('liurcli here and 
 the Church of Scotland ? I believe I can shovv tliat it did not. 
 Well, in 1840 the Imperial Parliament jjassed an Act respectin«,' 
 the Clergy Reserves. 
 
 A Member. — What Act is that ? 
 
 Mr. Brymneu. — The Imperial Act, 2 Sc 4 Vic, cap. 7JS., to provide 
 for the sale of the Clergy Reserves. If, as Mr. Morris contended, 
 the clergy reserves were given to the Synod, the Acts would show 
 it. The shares coming to the Church of England and to the Church 
 of Scotland in Canada, are to be distributed in a certain way, and 
 the bodies distributing them, have, it is perfectly apparent, no 
 proprietorship in the fund coming from these reserves. The share 
 to the clergy of the Church of England was to be expended under 
 the authority of the '• Society for the Propagation (jf the Gos])el 
 in Foreign Parts," the share to the clergy of the CJhurch of Scot- 
 land under the authority of a l)oard of nine commissioners, to be 
 elected by the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in 
 connection with the Church of Scotland, under regulations from 
 time to time established by the Governor-in-Council. Did this 
 give proprietorship ? Was there even any idea of control ? Was 
 it not a mere supervision ? The Synod declared itself a spiritual 
 <joart, and declined to deal with worldly affairs. Certainly there 
 must have been a change since then. The commissioners did not 
 even send their accounts to the Synod ; these were sent to the Gov- 
 ernment. The Synod respectfully offered suggestions to the Board 
 for consideration, entreated, requested, asked as a favour that the 
 commission would lay copies of the accounts before it. The 
 Synod never spoke as proprietor or even as having control, although 
 now a majority applies for Acts on these grounds. In 1853, an- 
 other Imperial Act was passed, declaring that when the clergy 
 reserves were secularized, the annual stipend or allowances to the 
 clergy, not to the Synod, of the Churches of England and Scot- 
 land, could neither be annulled, suspended or reduced. In 1854, 
 the Provincial Act, authorized by the Act I have just spoken of, 
 provided for the payment of the allowances hitherto enjoyed by 
 the clergy of the Churches of England and Scotland, and author- 
 ized the commutation of the annuities, on the ground that it was 
 desirable to remove all semblance of connection between Church 
 and State. The learned counsel for our opponents, Mr. Morris, 
 maintained that the fund belonged to the Synod because of the 
 expression in the last Act, that the Governor in Council might 
 with the consent of the parties and bodies commute. I gave the 
 learned gentleman an opportunity of reconsidering his opinion by 
 calling his attention to the rest of the sentence he was quoting, 
 which is distinctly against his pretensions. On the strength of the 
 expression '•' bodies," Mr. Morris rests his argument that the Synod 
 is proprietor of this fund. The words of that very Act show the 
 
80 
 
 
 iintonabloness of tho position. Tho word "partios" nifcrs exclus- 
 ively to the miiiistiM's, who individually couuuuti)(l, on presenta- 
 tion of a certificate from the rueo;,niised medium of communicati(.'n, 
 the Synod, or, as was really done, by the intervention of a com- 
 missioner, to whom the individual ministers granted powers of 
 attorney. Tlie "bodies" mentioned were tho Roman (catholic 
 Church in Upper (.'anada, and the British VVesleyan Methodist 
 Church for Indian Missions, which were to receive annual allow- 
 ances for twenty years after |)assing the Act. In tho third clause 
 of tho Provincial Act (18 Vic, cap. 2), it will bo seen that the 
 parties might commute, at the rate of six per cent, per annum, 
 upon the probable life of each individual ; the bodies above speci- 
 fied at the actual value at the time of eomnmtation, that is, for 
 twenty years if done at once, or for any less time, if connnutation 
 was deferred. There is no need to detain you with emphasizin 
 that point, but if I am correct, the whole argument of our oppo 
 nents falls to the gi-ound. Well, in 1855, it was resolved to com- 
 mute and form a {)ermanent endowment. Mr. Morris says that 
 all the Synod engaged to do was to secure to the founders an 
 annuity of £112. 10s. a year, for life, and if that were done, the 
 obligations of the Synod ceased. Well, sir, that is scarcely the 
 meaning usually attached to tho formation of a permanent endow- 
 ment, which the individual ministers agreed to fm-m, at the i)er- 
 sonal sacrifice of £'S7 10s. a year for life. That was part of the 
 agreement, but another was in these words. 
 
 *' It shall be considered a fundamental principle that all persons who have 
 a claim to such benefits shall be ministers of tho Presbyterian Church of 
 Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, and that they shall cease 
 to have any claim on, or to bo entitled to, any share of said Commutation 
 Fund whenever they shall cease to be ministers in connection with the said 
 Church." 
 
 The Synod, sir, was simply to see that effect was given to tho 
 intentions of the donors, not to defeat them. What these inten- 
 tions were, and how far a majority of Synod was competent to set 
 them aside, is further proved by the adtlress to the Governor-Gen- 
 eral, in 1855, after it had been agreed to commute and from tho 
 commutation money to form a permanent endowment. It will be 
 noticed that it is the individual ministers who gave their money 
 who are spoken of. The address, after referring to the withdrawal 
 of allowances from the clergy reserves, says : 
 
 " In order that this blow may fall as lightly as possible upon the general in- 
 terests of religion, and more especially of the Church of which we are office- 
 bearers, we desire t« avail ourselves of the permission to commute the reserved 
 claims, as provided for in the recent statute to which the Royal Assent has. 
 been lately given, it being the desire of those of our number whose pecuniary 
 interests are involved theraia, to constitute a fund towards the maintenance 
 and extension of religious ordinances in connection with the Church of Scot- 
 land in this Province." 
 
 To secure the fulfilment of the Trust, an Act of Incorporation 
 was obtained in 1858, creating a Board of Management for the 
 
31 
 
 B'lmd, the Board to bo cloctcd by tlic Synod, and to lay bofon^ the 
 Synod an annual statemont, but tlio Synod is in no way reco;,'nis- 
 ed in tho Act as eithor proprifitor or havini^ control of tho Fund. 
 If th(3 Hoard had tailod in its duty, or attenipied to deal iniprtjpi'r- 
 ly with tho Fund, the Synod, bet'on* the majority left, could not, 
 as a Synod, have interfered Icj^^ally. It must have ^'onti to th<! 
 courts exactly as the Synod did after the majority left to enforce 
 tho terms of the Trust by the intervention of an individual luivin?^' 
 interest, as was the case in the suit taken by Mr. Dobio a'j^ainst tho 
 Temporalities' Board. I have littl; further to say on this point, 
 except to show positively the functions of the Synod. A Ooni- 
 mittee on Church Property, of which Mr. Alexander Morris was 
 the convener, now the Hon Alexander Morris, ex-Cj!overnor of Mani- 
 toba, reported, in 1857, that certain congregational properties had 
 been alienated, and recommended that the Synod should petition 
 the Legislature to |)lacc the law in such a position that the consent 
 of the Synod should be recjuisite in all cases of sale of church pro- 
 perty. Clearly, then, the Synod had of itself no power over the pro- 
 perty .although it was on that pretext the Union Acts were granted. 
 Next year, I808, the following a|)j)ears in the report of the same 
 committee, signed by Mr. Alexander Morris and adoi)ted by the 
 Synod on its own view of its powers. 
 
 " Tho Committee are of opinion that it is right and proper that tho Church 
 itself should have the right to interpose a check upon tho alienation of real 
 property by the individual congregations. It is true, that the property bo- 
 longs to the congregations, having been givni or ac(iuired to secure the ad- 
 ministration of the ordinances of the Gospel of that congregation, but never- 
 theless, thft Church as a whole, is interested in seeing that that pi'operty is 
 applied to its legitimate purpose, andjs not wasted, or dissipated, or alienated, 
 to meet some temporary ditliciilty, and thus de[ rive future generations of tho 
 boon some benevolent and God-fearing donor had designed to secure for 
 them." 
 
 I believe, sir, that I have clearly proved that the Synod had no 
 property in the Tem[)oralities' Fund, or any control over it, to 
 alienate or destroy it, but had tho most important work of seeking 
 to maintain and preserve it; that, so far as property is concerned, 
 is the work the Synod has to do, and which it tried to do until 
 these extraordinary pretensions were set up by a majority who 
 wished to form a new Church. In dealing now with tho consti- 
 tution of tho Fu>id, tho question of tho connection with tho 
 Church of Scotland will also be taken up, as the two go together 
 in this case. How are we to deal with these men ? they say that 
 so long as they were in the old Church, there was no connection, 
 but now that they have formed a new Church, they say that con- 
 nection still exists, and tho Church of Scotland acknowledges it. 
 Now, sir, I don't pretend to reconcile these statements, but this 
 you all know, that tho promoter of the Bills say that there never 
 was any connection with the Church of Scotland, but one of origin, 
 identity of standards, and ministerial and Church communion. 
 Mr. Sandford Fleming, in his printed memorandum, says the con- 
 
.*{2 
 
 nectionoftho Presltytorian (/Imrcli of Oauida vvitli tho Churcli 
 of Scotland lias always houn ono of filial iviranl nioroly. I don't 
 know if tlio nanio hero <rivv,n lias any nu!aiiin;(, ]»ut tlio Pmshy- 
 torian (Jhurch of Canada is not tho naino of our Church but of 
 tlio body that sooudod in 1 844, Lot th<! Htiitenient bo takon for 
 what ai)pcars on tho surfaco. Principal Cnint says tho sanio thin;,(, 
 and I may call tlio attention of tho Cominittoo to tho fact that 
 wliilst Ijo professes to spoak of flio Prosbytorian (Jhurch of (.'an- 
 ada, in connection with tho ('hurch of Scotland, as his Church, of 
 its funds, as his funds, and of us as havi!!'' seceded from the Svnod 
 represented by liiniself and others, he never was a minister of 
 that Church, and in spite of all In; can say, even if the majoiity 
 be that Church, is not now a minister of that Church, nor has lie 
 the slightest (tlaim on its funds. The words "vicarious argument," 
 used by our counsel, Mr. Macmaster, aptly describe the position 
 of the gdsntloman who poses as a member of a Churoh to which 
 he never belonged, nlthough all flnough his speech he led you to 
 believe so. Dr. Cook swears that there never was any connection, 
 and certainly he ought to know. The statement of these men, 
 then, is this : The Church has always been free and independent, 
 and never had any connection with the Church of Scotland, and 
 is, therefore, uncontrolled in the disposal of its affairs. Next, tho 
 Fund in question, is the property of the Synod, which by a 
 majority can do as it likes with it. 7'Jiat is, I think, a fair state- 
 ment of the case presented by the promoters of the Bills. I have 
 shown, I think, that the Fund was not the property of the Synod, 
 and not even under its control. The connection, I think, can bo 
 easily established, in spite of the solitary expression relied on from 
 a document written for a special ])Urpose, and which can best be 
 explained by the interpretation put on it at the time. Did the 
 Church of Scotland consider that it declared a severance of the 
 connection, at the very time, the Synod had been broken in two, 
 because of the refusal to give it up :* The General Assembly de- 
 clared in 1844, when this Act of Independence was passed, that 
 though the relations between the Parent and Colonial Churches 
 were somewhat anomalous, the bona fide communion of the latter 
 with the Scottish establishment admitted of being defined with 
 sufficient precision. The people who left our Church here spoke 
 no less distinctly. A committee was appointed by our Synod 
 and by the Synod formed of the Seceders to treat for re-union, 
 and in 1845, the latter committee reported to their Synod, that 
 they had met the Committee of the Synod in connection with 
 the Established Church of Scotland, (these gentlemen were par- 
 ticular in using the word " Establislied," because they hold the 
 Free Church to be the real Church of Scotland), " that they had 
 found these gentlemen disposed to lay great stress on an Act 
 passed by their Synod, declaring the Spiritual Independence of 
 their Church, but entirely indisposed to entertain any proposal 
 for dissolving the connection between their Synod and the Scot- 
 
n;) 
 
 ih 
 
 tlsli KstaltlisliiiKint, or altfiih;,' tlic <lrsi;,'Miiti<)ii of tlin Syfio<l, uiul 
 lunl tlicnsupon l)i<)k!;n oil' tli»3 ( 'onl'iMonco." Tlieso ou;;lit t<» 
 1)0 HiitHciciit to .show tliat, wliiitovcr tlio words iih'hii, thoy 
 «li<l not moan tlu; s^iVoiatK!!' of tlu; coiuuM-tion witli tlio 
 Church of Scotland. Tho (lovcrnniont of ('iinada did not 
 acknowled},'*! any sovurancii, for in unsw<'r to a petition from tho 
 ministers .vho seceded in LS41', for a continuance of the ('ler^y 
 Reserve allowances, on tlin j^round that tlicy maintained un- 
 chanjL^'cd ili((ir standards of d<»ctrinc, discipline, «,'ovcrnmt!nt and 
 worship, the ricvcnniK'Ht rcturncid for answcM- that the allow- 
 ances could not lu; continued, on aecount of their new position. 
 Government, in other words, liad nothin<^ to do with tliese things. 
 All the Ooverinnent asked was, Do you represent tho Church of 
 Scotland in (Canada ? Whatevisr meaniiiLr niav now bo twisted 
 out of the words descril)in<j^ the connecticm, I have surely shown 
 what meaning was attached to them when they were written. It 
 is admitted that the Temporalities' Fund whs derived from the 
 commutation of the (clergy Reserves, so that 1 am saved from the 
 trouble of j)roving it. But 1 suppose it will he necessary to show 
 for what reason the conunuters who formcid the fund became en- 
 titled to a share of the reserves. I sliall, as briefly as possible, run 
 over tho leading points of the history of the reseives, and tho 
 claims made on them. Jiy the Quebec Act of 177G, there was a 
 permissive clause tliat out of accustomed <lues and rights of the 
 Crown provision might be made for the support of a Protestant 
 clergy, and in l7iU the lands known as the Clergy Reserves were 
 set aside for this purpose. The Church of England claimed them 
 all, as being the national Church of the empire ; but in 1819 this 
 claim was disputed by the Church of Scotland congregation at 
 Niagara, and in November of that year, the Law Ofticors of the 
 Crown afHrmed the right of the Church of Scotland to a share, 
 and that these reserves were only intended for the clergy of th« 
 two national churches. The Church of Scotland appointed a 
 committee to watch over the interests of the Church in Canada, 
 and in 1825 the Colonial Secretary wrote officially to the con- 
 vener of the committee, that any congregation applying for a 
 share of the Clergy Reserves to assist in paying its minister must 
 comply with certain conditions, one of these being that they must 
 acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland. In 1831, 
 as I have said, the Synod was formed, the Church having been 
 formed long before. Every j'ear, nearly, from 1819 down to the 
 date of commutation, claims for the reserves were made on the 
 one only ground — identity with the Church of Scotland. I have 
 no intention of detaining you with reading all these, but shall 
 take a few stepping stones. In 1836, in reference to the Rectories 
 Act, it was declared in a series of resolutions, signed by Dr. Cook, 
 of Quebec, to be sent to tl > King, to the Royal Commissioners, to 
 both Houses of the Provincial Legislature, and to the General 
 
84 
 
 AKMomltly <»f till! (Jhiurli of ScotlaiKl, that ever s'lucv tlio fonna- 
 iion of r()n;^'n';;ati(,!is and tlw Nt'ttlciiM'iit of in'mistris in coiincc- 
 tioii vvitli tln^ Clinrcli of Scotlniul in thcsn I'iovIiuth, tli<;y had 
 chiiiiH'd a coiiininnication of all ri<;hts, privilc^cciH and advanta^'cs, 
 <M|iialIy witli the ( nmich of l'!nL,dand, l»y viitiic of tlio Ticnty of 
 Union hctvveun KnL,dand and Scotland and of the Constitntiotial 
 Act of 17!)1. In \H',\7, in a Icttci' of instruction to the \iv\. Dr. 
 Mathieson, as to the course he is to follow in Jiritain rc'^ardiii'' 
 the interestH of the (Miurch, tlio following,' occurs: " Clcr«,'y Kc- 
 Herves. — You will onch'avour tokcep alive in the C'hurchof Scotland 
 the interest already expressed in our just claims to a portion of these 
 reserves as lu'h^nj^dn;,' to an estaldished Church of the liritish Vau- 
 
 1)ire, co-ordinate with the (.'lundi of England." Y»it Mr. Sandford 
 •Meniing says, in his printed nieujoranduni, that tlie connection 
 was one of filial regard merely ; Principal Grant says the same 
 thing; i'r. (/ook swears that there never was any connection. In 
 1838, a protest was sent from the Synod to the Lieutenant (Jov- 
 ernor of Upper Canada (Sir Cleorgo Arthui), the whole of which 
 asserts the claim of the Church here to be])utonan e(iuality with 
 the Church of England, on the ground of being an estahllshecl 
 Cluirch of the Empire. A sentence or two will show this. "We 
 have claimed," says the })rotest, "as one of the Established Churches 
 of the Empire, as one of the Protestant Churches recognised by 
 tlie laws of the Empire, to share equally with the Church of P]ng- 
 land, in proportion to our numbers, in the lands set apart in Can- 
 ada for the maintenance of a Protestant clergy. In all these 
 respects our claims liave bi ^n fully admitted." And again: 
 "Satisfied that the principle t. .tt we iiad a right to rank e(pially 
 witli tlie Church of England as an established Church in Canada, 
 had received the fullest sanction," etc.; and in 1840, the claim was 
 decided by an Imperial Act, wliich I liave already cjuoted, appio- 
 pHating the revenue of the Cleigy Reserves to the payment of the 
 .clergy of the Church of England, and of the Church of Scotland 
 in Canada. Yet we have printed and verbal statements and the 
 sworn testimony of Dr. Cook and others, that there never was any 
 connection. In 1844 came the first secession, and the formation 
 of the Free Church in Canada, under the name of the Pre.ibyterian 
 Church of Canada. In that year (1844) the Act of Independence 
 was passed, one line of which has been made to do duty as evi- 
 dence that there never w^as any connection with the Church of 
 Scotland. Seven years after, we come to a most remarkable series 
 of resolutions respecting the Clergy Reserves ; — most remarkable, 
 if the statements of our opponents are to be believed. They begin ; 
 
 " That the Church of Scotland, of which this Synod is a branch, ha. always 
 believed," etc. 
 
 The fourth resolution begins and I crave the attention of the 
 Committee to the words : 
 
 " That ever since the formation of this Synod, our ecclesiastical relation- 
 ship has been acknowledged by the Parent Church, in every way conformable 
 
 in< 
 
85 
 
 rch of 
 
 series 
 
 •kiible, 
 
 besfin • 
 
 always 
 
 of the 
 
 to [her conHtitiitioii, aiul oiir own uccluaiaitiotil iiulopoiKU'iioo, mid on tliii 
 ^'roiiiid our iiiiniatMrii liiid puoplo havo for the liMt thirty your* ajMurttul tliuir 
 i'ii(litH to all tho )i«MU)titH of li uoiinuutioii with hur an oiiu of tho KntaMiiihtHl 
 (/liiirclum of till) Itritinh urupiru. KHpooially wq loii'^ ploailod our Ic^iil cluiui 
 to n portion of thu landn iu (Canada, tut apart for tliu inaiuttMiauco of h Pro* 
 titHtaiit clur^y, on tho i(rouii<l of tlut prop^ir loi{al import of that <l<iHi^tiati >n, 
 and of thu 'I'roaty of I iiioti hutwuuii Kui^land and Scotland. Thu claim madu 
 on thia Hitucial ground, and long ruiiiHtud hy uurtaiii partiun, wan at lungth a*l- 
 judicatcd iu our favour, hy a nuanimoux duciaion of llur MajoHty'H .ludguH iu 
 hJngland, on a ritfuruncu uuU'U to thum hy thu Houho of liontn," S:c. 
 
 Wlint an abyss of fraud you are asked to look into. For thirty 
 years, if the sworn evidenci; of our opponents is to be believed, our 
 ('hurclil)y falscliood, fraud and wilful imposition, was obtaining 
 money un<ler false proteiKtos ; J)r. (vook swears so, and lie ou;,dit 
 to know, for lie was one of three ap{)ointed to draw >ip a Pastoral 
 address to the; people in terms of the riisoliitiotis from wliich I havo 
 just (juoted. Nor was the Church here alone ; the fraud was aid- 
 ed and abetted by our Church in Scotland, by deceivin;^' the Tm- 
 peiial authoiites, deceivin<^' the Provincial (iDvernment, hoodwink- 
 iii<^' thecomnninity. The thin<:f seems incredible, yet our opponents 
 swear, they do not merely make a rash statement, they swear that 
 the char<,'e is true. During the very time this fraud was being 
 perpetrated, there was an agitation against the Clergy Reserves so 
 violent, that it threatened to rend in pieces, and to destroy the 
 Colony. Yet not one man discovered this enormous fraud. Not 
 (leorge Brown, with his keen and searching intellect saw that the 
 claims of the Church in connection with the Church of Scotland 
 were fraudulent. Yet Mr. Sanford Fleming says there was no 
 coiniection, filial regard merely ; Principal Grant says so ; Dr. Cook 
 swears it. Does any sane man believe that these sworn and un- 
 sworn statements are true ? Are we to acknowledge that our 
 Church, the Church to which we still adhere, in retaining the des- 
 ignation " in connection with the Church of Scotland," was Haunt- 
 ing a living lie upon its forehead ? Are we, the ministers and 
 elders of that (Jhurch, to admit that our very ordination was a 
 falsehood and that we were so tainted with unsound views, that 
 wo could not with safety be admitted into any Christian Church ? 
 That there is fraud somewhere seems clear ? Is it with us { Let 
 the (Jommittee decide where the fraud lies. Is it with the men 
 who struggled for the Clergy Reserves, when money was to be got 
 by it, or with the men vho swear that there never was any con- 
 nection with the Church of Scotland, when e([ually there is money 
 to be got by it ? Not a finger was ever pointed at our Church de- 
 nouncing her on this charge, the proof of which would at onco 
 have put an end to the Clergy Reserves agitation ; it was reserved 
 for those who have left us to puV)lish their own shame to the world, 
 by denying all connection with the Church of Scotland, yet seek- 
 ing to seize the property of her adherents. Need I go further to 
 test the worth of these men's evidence ? 
 
 Let me thank you, sir, and this Committee for the patient hear- 
 ing you have given nj^^ and to leave the question in your hands. 
 
rETITION 
 
 TO 
 
 HIS EXOKKLKNCY TIIK (iOVKHNOR-UKNKllAL. 
 
 The petition of tlic undersij^ncd, duly authorised representatives 
 of the PreHl»yterian Cliurch of (^anada, in counoction with the 
 (.Munch of Scotland, 
 
 Humbly Showetii : 
 
 That hy the Quebec Constitutional Act, 1791, a certain portion 
 of the lands of the Crown in Canada, was set apart for the sup- 
 port of a Protestant cler^^y, these laids being known as Clergy 
 Kescrves; 
 
 That the revenues of these lands were held by the clergy of the 
 Church of England, in (Jauada, to be exclusively for their benefit 
 on the ground that that Church was the national Church of the 
 empire ; 
 
 That in November, 1819, the I. aw OfHcers of the Crown, on a re- 
 ference from the House of Lords, decided that the benefit of these 
 Reserves should extend to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, 
 but not to dissenting ministers, the term " Protestant Clergy " 
 being held to apply only to Protestant clergy recognised and es- 
 tablished by law ; 
 
 That by the Imperial Act, 3 Sz. 4 Victoria, cap. Ixxviii., this deci" 
 sion was formally confirmed, and the distribution of the revenue'* 
 arising from these reserves was, for the clergy of the Church of Eng 
 land, placed in the hands of the Society for the Propagation of the 
 Gospel in Foreign Parts, and for the clergy of the Church of 
 Scotland, in the hands of Commissioners to be elected by th^? 
 Synod of the Presl)ytorian Church of Canada, in connection with 
 the Church of Scotland, under rules to be made by the Governor- 
 General of Canada, with consent of his Executive Council, to 
 whom all accounts were to be transmitted, the sole duty of the 
 said Synod, in this respect, being to supply authentic lists of the 
 clergy of the (Jhurch of Scotland, in Canada, entitled to share in 
 said benefits, which duty gave the said Synod no proprietorship 
 Li or control over the said revenues or the reserves from which 
 they were derived ; 
 
 That in the year 1844, a secession took place from the said 
 Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of 
 Scotland ; those so seceding applied to the then Government of 
 
 
37 
 
 deci" 
 
 Canada lor a coiitinuanco of tlio bonefits from tlio reserves, on the 
 ^'roiiiul tluit they had not changed their doctrine, discipUne or <ifov- 
 ernnient, and wen; answered oi+icially, that owing to their clian^jed 
 relation to the C'hurch of Scotland, they were no longer entitled 
 to any share of the benefits derivable from such reserves ; 
 
 That by Imperial Act of lcS5*J, and Provincial Act of 18r)4, 
 thereby authorised, the Clergy Reserves were secularized, and the 
 claims of the ministers individually on the said reserves were 
 commuted for a certain amount, calculated on the value of the 
 prospective life of each individual minister so commuting ; 
 
 That in order to obtain security that only those entitled to such 
 payments should enjoy the benefits of the said commutation, the 
 Covemment of Canada, in carrying out the provisions of these Acts, 
 decided that no payment was to be made except on certificate from 
 the said Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection 
 with the Church of Scotland, andthat, for the convenience of the 
 Government of Canada, the payments should be made to a Com- 
 missioner duly authorized by each of tlie said ministers to receive 
 and pay over to him the sum to which he was individually enti- 
 tled ; 
 
 That the method thus adopted was solely as security to the 
 Government of Canada, that no individual should receive benefits 
 from the said reserves who was not a minister of the Church of 
 Scotland in Canada, but gave to the said Synod no proprietor- 
 ship in or control over the moneys thus arising ; 
 
 That the said individual ministers resolved to create a perma- 
 nent endowment for the benefit of adherents of the Church of 
 Scotland in Canadp, out of the proceeds of the commutation to 
 which they were individually entitled, under a solemn obligation, 
 as expressed in these words of the original agreement : " That all 
 persons who have a claim to the benefits of this endowment shall 
 be ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection 
 with the Church of Scotland, and that they shall cease to have 
 any claim on, or be entitled to, any share of said Commutation 
 Fund whenever they shall cease to be ministers in connection 
 with said Church ; " 
 
 That in 1858, a Board for the management of this fund, known 
 as the Temporalities' Board, was incorporated by Act of the old 
 Province of Canada, to hold the said fund in trust for the benefit 
 of the said Church, the sole duty of the Synod of said Church in 
 relation to the fund being to elect the trustees and exercise a gen- 
 eral supervision so as to prevent the alienation or misappropria- 
 tion of the said fund ; 
 
 That in 1874 and 1875, Acts of the Local Legislature were ob- 
 tained to set aside the provisions of the said Act of Incorporation 
 of 1858 on the application of a majority of the said Synod 
 who had resolved to join other religious bodies and to form a new 
 Church; 
 
88 
 
 That tlie said majority obtained these Acts, and also Acts to set 
 aside the terms of an Act incorporating a Board of Trustees to 
 liold a fund called the Ministers' Widows and Orphan's Fund of 
 the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection with the Church 
 of Scotland, and also an Act to set aside the terms of the Royal 
 Charter of Queen's College at Kingston, on the ground that a 
 majority of the Synod could l)y a vote determine, vary and set 
 aside the terms of the Trusts by which the property of the said 
 Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of 
 Scotland, is held and administered ; 
 
 That the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 
 have declared explicitly in their judgment in the appeal of the 
 Rev. Robert Dobie v. the Temporalities' Board, that the Synod has 
 no such power, and that even if every member of said Synod 
 agreed to submit to an undertaking to this effect, that no court 
 of law would sustain such an obligation ; 
 
 That the trusts and colleges are not the property of the said 
 Synod, but of the Church which created the Synod as a managing 
 body, to watch over its interests ; 
 
 That the Clergy Reserves were granted for the benefit of na- 
 tives of Scotland emigrating to Cadada, being members of the 
 Church of Scotland, and that the trusts, colleges and congrega- 
 tional properties are held for their benefit, for the benefit of their 
 children whilst they adhere to that Church, and for the benefit 
 of all who may desire to enjoy the privileges thus secured for the 
 maintenance and extension of religious ordinances in connection 
 with the Church of Scotland, but who cannot, on the plea of 
 being a majority, or for any other reason, take possession of the 
 property of the adherents of the Church of Scotland in Canada 
 to be transferred to the adherents of any other church ; 
 
 That, by the law of the land, as declared in various judgments, 
 in Canada, the ministers and others who have joined the new 
 Church, known as the Presbyterian Church in Canada, have ceased 
 to be members of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connec- 
 tion with the Church of Scotland, and have forfeited all title to 
 the benefits springing from that connection, whilst those who still 
 adhere to that Church have been equally declared to be those for 
 whose benefit the Trusts were created; 
 
 That, by the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
 Council, above referred to, the Local Legislation of 1875 affecting 
 the Temporalities' Act of 1858, has been explicitly, and other Acts 
 for the purpose of carrying out the union referred to, have been 
 implicitly set aside ; 
 
 That Bills to legalize these Acts, and to transfer the Temporali- 
 ties' Fund, the Ministers' Widows' and Orphans' Fund, and Queen's 
 College, from the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection 
 ■with the Church of Scotland, to a new body called the Presby- 
 
 n 
 
39 
 
 terlan Church in (Janada, liave been passod l>y the two Houses of 
 J'arliaiiKmt, and now await the Royal assent; 
 
 That, l)y these Bills it is dechired tliat tlie J^reshyteriari Church 
 of Canada, in connection with the Ciuireh of Scotland, shall no 
 longer be suti'ered to exist in this country as a distinct Church ; an 
 application for an Act of Incorporation, made during this Session, 
 having been rejected for the following reasons, given in a report 
 presented to the House of Commons, by its Committee on Private 
 Billa :: — " Find preamble not proven, inasmuch that by Bid No. 
 G(), it was declared the Synod of the Presbyterian Church in 
 Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, was incorpo- 
 rated in the Union ; they, therefore, cannot recommend a separate 
 Act of Incorporation ;" 
 
 That, it was shown by petition, and otherwise, that the Presby- 
 terian Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scot- 
 land, still continues as a distinct Church, having , its Presbyteries 
 Synod and congregations of adherents of the Church of Scotland 
 in Canada ; 
 
 That, their existence and rights have been recognised by the 
 Courts of Canada ; 
 
 That the capital of the Temporalities' Fund was, by agreement 
 with the original founders, sanctioned by the Act of Incorporation 
 of 1858, to remain untouched, it being provided that the revenues 
 alone were to be drawn on to meet the annual expenditure ; 
 
 That, contrary to the terms of the Trust, the capital has, 
 since 1875, been diminished to the extent of nearly one hundred 
 and forty thousand dollars, ($140,000) ; 
 
 That, by the Temporalities' Bill, passed during this Session, it is 
 provided that the capital shall continue to be encroached on, and 
 a clause has been inserted in the Bill, legalizing all transactions of 
 whatever nature since June, 1875, on the part of those who, by 
 the said Bill, have been reinstated as trustees of the said fund, 
 which is to be diverted from its original objects, although they 
 were declared by the Privy Council to have been administering it 
 illegally, so that any investigation into the nature of the said 
 transactions is thereby prevented; 
 
 That, the Acts referred to in this petition, now awaiting the 
 Royal assent, are in violation of the civil and religious rights of a 
 portion of this community which has done nothing to forfeit them ; 
 
 That, even if it were competent for Parliament to pass Acts in 
 violation of the law of toleration and of the liberty of conscience 
 secured to every British subject, that canaot be done by a private 
 Bill, promoted by private individuals, and the objects of which are 
 not even stated to be necessary for the general public good ; 
 
 That, if it be determined for the general public good to put an 
 end to a Church which has existed in these Provinces continuously 
 since immediately after the cession of Canada, and still exists, 
 though numerically diminished, that determination can only be 
 
40 
 
 given cttbct to l)y a Pu])lic Act introduced l>y tlie Govornnient, .set- 
 ting forth tin; reasotis for jnittingan end to the Chun'li, and accom- 
 panied by a clause giving ininiediatc compensation to all interested; 
 
 That besides constitutional objections to the Bills referred to; 
 they are vicious in principle, being retrospective in their effects ; 
 they deal with private property in contravention of the terms of 
 the Trusts by which it is held, and of the decisions of the highest 
 courts of law in Canada and Great Britain ; they interfere with 
 cases, now before the CJourts, and inflict a pecuniary penalty 
 on those who, acting in good faith, liave incurred costs in suits 
 raised on the well-gronnded belief in the permanency of the laws 
 of the land respecting obligations, trusts, and contracts, and they 
 are in violation of the rights of conscience, by compelling the ad- 
 herents of our Church to join a newly-formed religious organiza- 
 tion under penalty of confiscation of the means placed in trust to 
 secure for them the maintenance of religious ordinances by the 
 Church to which they belong; 
 
 That, besides the general (question, the Eill relating to Queen's 
 College is ultra vires, as it sets aside the terms of a Royal Charter : 
 
 Wherefore, — For these and other reasons, your petitioners, duly 
 authorized by the said Presbyterian Church of Canada, in 
 connection with the Church of Scotland, humbly pray that 
 the Bills relating to the Board of Management of the Tem- 
 poralities' Fund of said Church ; to the Ministers' Widows' 
 and Orphans' Fund of said Church, and to Queen's College, 
 be not assented to, but that they be reserved until Her 
 Majesty's pleasure shall be known. 
 
 And your petitioners, &c. 
 
 Gavin Lang, 
 
 Moderator of the Synod of the Presbyterian 
 Church of Canada, in connection with the 
 Church of Scotland. 
 
 Douglas Brtmner, 
 
 Clerk of the Synod pro tempore. 
 
 T. A. McLean. 
 
 'I \ 
 
4T 
 
 THE QUESTION OF COMPROMISE. 
 
 Wliilst the Teiiiporalitios Bill wa.s before the Coinuiitteo of the 
 House of Commons, it was suggested, apparently by autho. ity, 
 that it might be possible to efFect a compromise of the claims of 
 those who adhered to the Church of Scotland. Feeling the un- 
 wisdom of agreeing to such a proposal, I declined to do so, on 
 various grounds, some of which will be found embodied in the 
 following letter, in which I desired to place my views on record, 
 to be laid before the Defence Committee of the Presbyterian 
 Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland. 
 The entertaining the proposal was, I believe, to drag us down 
 from our true position of fighting for a principle to that of scram- 
 bling for a few thousand dollars, an acknowledgment which the 
 members of the Church were not prepared, and had no reason, to 
 make. I now publish the letter to form part of the history of 
 the proceedings : 
 
 Ottawa, 17th March, 1882. 
 
 Dear Sik, — After long and painful consideration of the wisdom of making 
 a compromise, as we have been requested to do, I have come to the delib- 
 erate conviction, that it is my duty, to decline giving my sanction to the 
 course proposed to tis. We have no authority from our people to barter 
 away their just claims. That is one reason. But there are others. What 
 security have we that this agreement will be more permanent than the last, 
 hedged round as that was by personal obligation and legislative sanction ? 
 We are fighting for the maintenance of oiir Church, and in that respect I 
 feel the weight of responsibility laid on me by our people whom I represent, 
 almost greater than I can bear, but co-incident with that, we are fighting a 
 great social and constitutional battle, to which the attention of the whole 
 people of the Dominion should be directed. I prefer fighting communism 
 at once, rather than after it has been established as the rule in Canadian le- 
 gislation. I deny the right of Parliament to take from mo my property, and 
 give it to, or divide it with, my neighbour, at the dictation of any class of 
 men, no matter how numerous or influential. I deny the right of Parlia- 
 ment to usurp the functions of a court of law, to reverse the judgment 
 of Her Majesty's Privy Council, the highest Court of the Empire, and to 
 declare one of two contending parties to be entitled to the fiinds of a trust 
 by means of a bill, which its very title proves to belong to the other. 
 
 Parliament cannot constitutionally pass the bills under consideration. 
 
 (1) A franchise already granted, and not forfeited, cannot be re-granted. 
 
 (2) The act of confiscation now threatened is not an act of legislation. 
 
 (3) The bills are not general acts, but affect particular persons, and dis- 
 solve contracts. 
 
 (4) It is not within the competency of the Parliament of Canada to set 
 aside the terms of a royal charter constituting a trust aftecting third parties. 
 
 The legislation is vicious in principle. 
 
 (1) It deals with private rights to their detriment. 
 
 (2) It is retroactive in its effect. 
 
 (3) It interferes with actions now before the courts. 
 
 (4) It destroys all faith in the security of property, permanency of trusts, 
 and validity of contracts. 
 
42 
 
 (5) It undomiinos tho founclfttions of Bociety, and dcprivm tho wofik of 
 all protection U{.^vin8t those who, by co-operation of I'arlianiont, will be aV)le 
 to obtain legislation against thorn, no matter how lUijust may bj its charac- 
 ter. 
 
 Should it bo determined to present any scheme for compromise, I recpiest 
 that tliis letter may form part of the docinnents embodying the proposed 
 compromise, and that it be read before the committee, if, and when, its 
 sanction is asked for the adoption of such compromise. 
 
 In the event of its being found necessary for the vindication of my course, 
 should no compromise be effected, 1 reserve to myself tho right of making 
 
 this letter public. I am, &c. *&c., 
 
 ^ DOUGLAS BllYMNEll. 
 
g 
 
 
 ^l^-£^