«Ad .vaj %. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (AAT-3) y M/. ^/ ,A^^ Q- &>/ 1.0 I.I 1.25 IM 1 21 1112.5 IM IM 1.4 III 2.2 IM 1.6 % ■% '# ^;. c^. <^i C^' \^^ % >."•' CM o"^ o^ /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Note^ techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul4e □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured pages/ D D D D D D D Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes n Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es □ Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'irnpression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. r~7l This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 1^1 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X s/ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ails du >difier une nage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada 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. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce d la g6n6rusit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nattetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous Hs autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^> (meaning 'CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at u.^sront reduction ratios. Those too large to be e.)^?r«iv -nii'.^sd in one exposure are filmed begint. . in tie upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The fol'owing diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsrue le document est trop ^ rand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd A partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. srrata to pelure, )n d D 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 !»»:?< James JonysTON vs. The Minister and Trustees of St. Andrew's Church : 16 BEINO A REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT Rendered thereon by His Honor, Mr. Justice Johnson, 30th December, 1873. BY REV. R. CAMPBELL, M.A. I*rice IS Oents. MONTREAL: PRINTED BY MITCHELL & WIL180N, 192 ST. PETER STREET. v/ 1874. M James Johnston vs. The Minister and Trustees of St. Andrew's Church: BEING y A REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT Rendered thereon by His Honor, Mr. Ju*!Tice Johnson, 30th December, 1873. BY !^ -^1 REV. R. CAMPBELL, M.A. MONTREAL: PRINTED BY MITCHELL & WILSON, 192 ST. PETER STREET. 1873. /IT! ( . ■■ ' ','-• ''' ■■«;,., •- . ■),_ : I ■ t ,V - ; ■ JAMES JOHNSTON; ; ; / ; THE MINISTER AND TRUSTEES OF ST. ANDREWS CHURCH : T/ie Ecclesiastical bearings of the Case, The Judgment rendered by His Honor, Mr. Justice Johnson, in this case, on the 30th December, 1873, involves fiomev^'hat serious consequences I do not mean the con- sequences to Mr. James Johnston personally, although to him they must be very serious indeed ; but, if the judg- ment is to stand, and be made a precedent of, to the mem- bers of every Church in Canada. As a humble layman, so far as the profession of law is concerned, I could not pre- sume to criticize the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge who presided at the trial, while he confines him- self to expounc'ing the principles of the civil law, or to weighing the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff and De- fendants respectively. It is his office to do this, and I bow respectfully to his decision. If he is satisfied that Mr. Johnston held no verbal lease from the Trustees of St. Andrew's Church, and that the receipts put into court had the legal force of a written lease, and that the whole case hung upon these points, then he had probably no alternative but to render the judgment he did. On the purely tech- nical points involved in the decision, I do not feel myself competent to form an opinion, but one does not need to be learned in the law to be able to judge for himself whether the whole case hung upon this i)oint or not. . I humbly submit that there were other elements to be taken into account in order to come to an equitable de- cision in the case. I indeed agree with His Honor, that there was not in reality more than one question before the Court, viz. : " Had the Defendants a right to do as they did ? " But before a sufficient answer can be ob- tained to this question, it appears to me that something more must be done than determinf; the exact legal value of the receipts held by Mr. Johnston. It is, perhaps, not to be wondered at that Judge Johnson should have been reluctant to enter upon a consideration of the ecclesiasti- cal complications invoh^ed in the case, and which, as I believe and hope to show before I have done, were un- wisely and unwarrantably dragged before the Court by the Counsel for the defence". He is, in my humble judg- ment, much to be commended for having ignored as irre levant to the case, the vast amount of evidence led by the Defendants' Counsel, bearing upon the character and con- duct of the Plaintiff. But while His Honor was justified in disregarding their plea of justification, how comes it that he did not take into consideration the nalyre of the trust held by the Defendants and overlooked the funda- mental question, /or ivhom do they as trustees act ? I notice that he is reported in one place as putting the case thus : " They once let him a pew in their church." The icatics are mine. In this sentence we find the groundwork of the judgment rendered, a judgment which must have been a surprise to many as it certainly was to me. But this premise is fallacious. The Church is not their church. It is as much Mr. Johnston's as theirs. His Honor seems unaccountably to have overlooked the difference between this trust and an ordinary one. It is not as if they repre- sented property or interests alien to Mr. Johnston, to which he bore no relation until they put him into that relation. On the contrary, they were elected to the office of Trustee by Mr. Johnston himself, among others, to look after his interests as well as their own, and it might, as well as not, tion. istee his I not, have happened that he himself should have been chosen a Trustee. But it will serve to throw still further light upon this fundamental point, to say a word or two on the nature of the duties pertaining to the office of Trustee, in the Churches, connected with the Church of Scotland, in Canada There are usuallj' two soparate bodies in every conffrejration, the Trustees and Manas'tn's. The function of the former is to hold the church property in trust for a specific purpose, namely, for the maintenance of the w^orship of Grod according to the doctrines and practice of the Church of Scotland. When a Trustee is elected, it is for life, unless he becomes disqualilied, or chooses to resign. But in the absence of corporate powers. Trustees who hold property for congregations have only a life estate in it, and there is consequently risk always of the trust lapsing, owing to the formalities to be gone through in electing successors, in case of the death, removal or disqualification of Trustees. Sev^eral congregations feeling the inconvenience of this, and desirous of having greater facilities for the acquisition and disposal of property, have applied for and obtained corporate powers : St. Andrew's, Church, Montreal, among others. But for 41 years, from 1806 to 1847, that church was, I presume, on the same footing as the majority of the churches in Ontario and Quebec. Besides the Trustees, however, whose sole function ordinarily is to hold the church property, there is in most churches, and in every church organized since 1847 there must be, in terms of the Model Constitution imposed by the Synod on all new congregations, a distinct body w^hose business is to manage the financial affairs of the congregation year after year. They are called the Managers and are elected annually. Tke/y are representatives of the congregation worshipping in the church for the time being : the Trustees are representatives of the church at large, the religious body to which it belongs, and are bound to hold the property for the maintenance of the Tiews of that body alone, unless that body, through its church courts, sanctions the use of it by the representatives of any other religious dencmination. It is important to notice the distinction oidinarily obtaining between Trus- tees and Managers, as it has a bearing upon the merits of the case before us. By the Act incorporating St. Andrew's Church in this city, those separate functions are united in the Trustees of the Church, who are also constituted an elective body. One of the reasons set forth in the preamble, for asking a legislative charter, was " the inconvenience re- sulting from the want of a corporate capacity in them, the said Trustees, to enforce by legal process the payment of the rents payable by the holders of pews in the said church." The promoters of the Bill did not ask for any neiv powers to be vested in the Trustees or Managers, or additional to those they were before accustomed to wield, but only authority to invoke the courts of law to give effect to their old powers. Interpreted in the light of the history of St. Andrews's Church, it is clear that the same principles were to govern the administration of the atlUirs of the congregation that existed prior to the act of Incor- Juration, and that are in force still in the majority of the congregations connected with the Church of Scotland, iu Canada. Now, to apply what has been urged above to the mat- ter in hand, whether we view the Trustees of St. Andrew's Church in their capacity of representatives of the whole Church of Scotland in Canada, or in that of representatives oilYiQ Con}];regation ivorshipping in it, at the time when they refused to let a pew^ to Mr. Johnston, their conduct cannot, in my opinion, be justified as equitable. The very first clause of the Act of Incorporation explicitly states for w^hose use the Church property exists — " the Church for the Public Worship and exercise of the religion of the Church of Scotland in the City of Montreal!' In the wider sense, as representing the whole Church, they are bound to grant the use of the building to e\'ery adherent of the Church of Scotland in Montreal — not for the families or ' V individuals at present attending, as families or individuals, but only because they declare their adhesion to the Pres- byterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland — and Mr. Johnston, being among the numb*T of those adherents, could claim accommodation at their hands even though he had no previous connection with the congregation, unless they could show that there was no such accommodation at their command. If this be not con- ceded, I cannot see how the Trustees could be prevented, during the three years of their continuance in office, from excluding every adherent of the Church of Scotland in Montrt^al from the Church, if they had any motiA-e for doing so ; and then what would become of the Act of Incorporation ? But when the Trustees are regarded as acting in the other capacity, as representatives of those worshipping in the Church for the time being, their treat- ment ol Mr. Johnston is still less justifiable. They are nothiiii;' more than the managers of a joint-stock company or pavliicrship, Mr, Johnston being a partner or stock- holder. They represent him as well as the other partners, and it is only as a matter of convenience that thet/ are invested with high legal powers, and not because they have greater rights in the premises than Mr. Johnston. It is not until Mr. Johnston ceases to be a partner, or, to drop the figure, withdraws his name from the communion roll of St. Andrew's Church, or refuses to comply with the general conditions of the trust, that his rights cease. They cannot drive him out of the partnership, without his consent, unless he has violated the conditions of that partnership, which he is not accused in this case of doing. Evidence was led by the defence to show that it is no uncommon thing in congregations connected with the Church, of Scotland, to abolish pew-rents altogether, and so to annihilate all rights of pewholders. But the conclusion sought to be drawn from this, that therefore it was no un- usual stretch of prerogative for the Trustees of St. Andrew's Church to refuse a pew to a member of the Church in good standing, is a non sequitur. No Trustees or Managers of any church ever did, or ever could, abolish the pew system, where ^t previously existed, without the consent of the congregation. And who doubts that the pew system in St. Andrew's Church might be abolished, if the congregation agreed to it, Mr. Johnston among the rest? But what I should like to know is whether in the case of a congre- gation adopting some other mode of obtaining a revenue than by giving a right of property in pews for a certain sum, any one person whose rights were equal to the other members of the Church, could be singled out for different treatment from the rest That is the parallel which we want. But it will be vain to seek it. It really is not a question of the right in ant/ given ^tew, at all, which is at issue, but the right of accommodation, like other worship- pers, in the Church. The pews might all be cleared out of St. Andrew's Church, and the people be obliged to accommodate themselves with stools, if they wished to sit during Divine service, as is the case in many continental churches ; and the question would be, could the Trustees prevent Mr. Johnston from taking his stool with him to church and occupying such a position of advantage as he might be able to elbow his way to ? As it is, the pews cover the whole floor of the church, except the aisles, and unless he got a pew to sit in he could not have a seat in the edifice at all, if he did not bring a stool into one of the aisles at the risk of being knocked down and trampled upon by those entering or leaving the church. It was also attempted to be shown that other persons besides Mr. Johnston have been removed by the Trustees of St. Andrew's Church from the pews they occupied. . But here again there is no parallel. It was always by arrangement with the parties, and because the financial interests of the trust demanded it, that it was done, and they were accom- modated with seats elseivhere in the Church. And, doubt- less, if the Trustees had gone to Mr. Johnston and said, " we cannot give you this pew which you occupy, for an- other year, because we can let it to greater advantage to 4Some other person, who will pay for it more than you are willing to pay — but at the same time we will find you a pew elsewhere, so situated that the sum you can afford to pay will be an adequate rent," Mr. Johnston would have felt the request to be reasonable, and would have complied with it at once. But the letter of the Trustees shows that they not only declined to give Mr. Johnston possession of the same pew that he had occupied be lore, but to rent him awy pew. If, then, the Trustees have the right to do as they did, that right does not arise out of the nature of their trust, and unless there is something in the Constitution and By- Laws of the congregation specially claiming this right for them, in opposition to both common sense and equity, I fear it will be long before we can pomt in any other quarter to either law or precedent for their action. The Act of Incorporation confers upon the Trustees the power of making By-Laws, under certain limitations, one of these being that such By-Laws or Regulations "shall not be con- trary to the Constitution of the Church of Scotland." By- Laws were afterwards framed, and the first section of Article XVIII of these By-Laws reads thus: "This Church shall be under the jurisdiction of the Synod of the Presby- terian Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland." We look in vain in the By-Laws for any special right claimed by the Trustees to disfranchise a member of the Church who pays his dues, and conforms to the requirements of the trust. The fact is, no body of men in framing By-Laws would be so foolish as to con- spire against their own rights ni constructing them ; and I venture to say that until a crisis arose in their Church, which seemed to them to demand a stretch of their pero- gative, the present Trustees never entertained the claim which they now put forth, of being able to take pews from one set of men and give them to others, at their own option. There being, therefore, no specific authority in 10 the Constitution and By-Laws for the course pursued by the Trustees, we are obliged, in terms of the Act of Incor- poration, to consult the constitution of the Church of Scot- land on the point at issue, and to see what the regulations and practice of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, under the eccle- siastical jurisdiction of which the St. Andrew's congrega- tion lies, have to say on the question before us. His Honor, Mr. Justice Johnson, says in his judgment as re- ported : " We must not confound a voluntary organiza- tion like this one, exercising corporate powers, under certain regulations, with the Church in Scotland, from which it sprung. We have not imported the Scottish Parish Church and all its usages here. It is because we had not got these things that we were obliged to shift for ourselves and get incorporated, and agree among ourselves how we should be governed," &c. I would refer His Honor to the Act of Incorporation itself for a correction of the opinion expressed in these three sentences. Answer- ing the last of them first, I beg to say that it was not questions of government that led to the Act of Incorpora- tion, — the Preamble does not say so, but it and the By- Laws, which specify nothing about government, clearly show that it was only for financial purposes, for creating easily moved machinery for managing the property and revenues of the Church, that corporate powers were sought. As to the two first sentences I have quoted, it, is enough to state the fact tha:. the Act of Incorporation specially prohibits the Trustees from framing regulations " contrary to the constitution of the Church of Scotland," to show that the learned Judge is astray on this point. The very Charter, under which the Trustees claim the extraordinary powers they have exercised in this case, "imports" " the usages" " of the Scottish Parish Church." And the Trustees give effect to this clause of the Act of Incorporation in the stipulations of Articles I and XVIII of the By-Laws, which provide that the government of 11 "usages" of the re- tlie Church shall be regulated by the Church of Scotland, and that the Synod in Canada shall see that these usages are complied with. Judge Johnson more than once employs the word " vol- untary " to describe religious organizations that are sepa- rate from the State, and ii such a way as to lead to the impression that he believes that they are less bound ta adhere to their laws than Established Churches are. He cites an American Jurist as his authority for saying that the Civil "Courts will not interfere with the determination of the majority of the body of which the complaining party is a voluntary member, except in certain strictly defined cases of disposal or misappropriation of property in trust; and it is only when civil rights as to property are involved that the secular tribunals will examine so far as to see that the fundamental rules of law have been observed." It is, perhaps, not to be expected that a Canadian Judge, however well skilled in Canadian and English law, should be familiar with Scottish law and precedents. But I can furnish him with both law and precedent to show him that, at least in Scotland, the interference of the Civil Courts can be invoked in other cases than those he men- tions — by the members of non-established churches. On the 19th July, 1861. in the First Division of the Court of Session, judgment was given in a case that attracted a great deal of attention in Scotland, the celebrated Card- Eoss Case. The facts were briefly these : the Rev. John McMillan, a minister of the Free Church of Scotland, was deposed from the office of the ministry — he alleged irregu- larly — by the Greneral Assembly, the highest ecclesiastical court of that church. Holding that he had not been con- demned according to the constitutional practice of the church, and there being no higher church court to which he could carry the case by appeal, he entered an action of damages against the Free General Assembly in the Civil Court. The case was first tried before Lord Ordinary Jerviswoode. The pleas set up by the Free Church 12 ! I authorities in defence, covered substantially the ground taken by Judge Johnson, that they being a voluntary as- sociation, any one who was not satisfied with their action was at perfect liberty to withdraw from their communion, and that they were not amenable to the Civil Courts for the manner in which they administered their laws. The Lord Ordinary's interlocutor repelled these preliminary pleas, and held that if Mr. McMillan could prove his alle- gations, he would be entitled to the interposition of the Oivil Courts to secure him in the recovery of the amount of damage he had suffered from the alleged illegal '^ction of the Assembly. The church authorities brought the ■case in appeal before the highest Civil Court in Scotland, the First Division of the Court of Session, and I quote below from the reported unanimous deliverance of the Oourt, confirming the judgment of Lord Jerviswoode, de- claring that voluntary associations are bound to adhere to their own laws, and that if any adherent of such associa- tion can show that he has suffered injury from the viola- tion of its own laws, on the part of that association, he can recover damages in a Civil Court. Lord President McNeill {now a Peer, Baron Colonsay, a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to whom it is understood all Scotch cases in appeal before the Privy Council are referred,) pronounced the judgment of the Court, from the report of which I make the following extracts : " The question arises out of the proceedings of a voluntary asso- ciation — a numerous body, certainly, of Christians — asso- ciated for purposes of religion — forming a society called, and perhaps not improperly, a church, though we could get no accurate definition of that word ; and it is a body of professed Christians, tolerated by law and enjoying the protection of the law in the expression and promulgation •of their religious opinions and doctrines, and in the per- formance and exercise of their religious rights. That body has a constitution and rules by which the society is governed, and to which its members have voluntarily 13 subjected themselves ; and, in so fur as they have sub- jected themselves to these rules and to that constitution^ the State or the Civil Courts will not hold that they are entitled to complain when these rules are observed, unless there is something in them contrary to the public law of the land." ..." The pursuer avers that according to the constitution and rules of that association — the General As- sembly — which is the body possessing the greatest power according to the rules of that association — the General Assembly, in pronouncing the sentence in question, ex- ceeded its powers and violated the constitution and rules under which he placed himself and had been received into the association ; and thai by so doing they subjected him necessarily to loss of emolument, and also subjected him to injury as regards his character and feelings." . . . " It is plain that, until the facts are investigated, we can- not know whether the constitution and rules of the asso- ciation have been violated or not, whether the terms of the contract have or have not been broken, by the de- fenders, to the injury of the pursuer. / cannot assent to the proposition wlilvli has been contended for on the part of the defenders, that, whatever may have been the constitution and rules of this association, and hoivever Jia^rantly violated by the Assembly, no redress can be made in the Civil Courts. I think that for injury done by gross violation of the contract, redress may be given, and in the form in inhich it is asked, that is to say in the form ofdamagesr The case on its merits was never inally disposed of, I believe, some sort of com- promise having been eliected between the parti(\s to the suit, but this judgment on the preliminary issues still stands. From the principles laid down in this decision, in the part of the quotation which I have italicized, it would appear that Mr. Johnston could summon even the Session, Presbytery, or Synod before the Civil" Courts, if he contended that he had sustained injury by their violating their own law^s — much more the Trustees, who have had a legal status conferred upon them by Parliar 14 ment for the very purpose of suing or being sued. The •Civil Court had a right to inquire into all the acts and motives of the Trustees in the premises, and to examine the laws of the church which bore upon the question at issue — indeed, without doing so, it was impossible to dis- pose of the case satisfactorily. I presume Scotch prece- dents would govern the case before the Supreme Court of the realm, the Privy Council, inasmuch as it is in Scot- land that the machinery of Presbyterian churches is best understood, and, especially, inasmuch as the charter of St. Andrew's Church is limited bij the consti! (Hon of the Church of Scotland. The learned Judge, commenting upon the evidence led by Mr. Johnston's Counsel to show that the Defendants had acted contrary to the constitutional practice of the Church, is reported to have said : " The Plaintiff is there- fore driven to rest his case upon the law and usage of the Church, and in this attempt I think he has completely failed." I do not know what all the evidence before His Honor on this point was, but I heard part of it. Dr. Campbell testified, as one of the oldest members of the Church, that it was an understood thing that persons occupying pews in the Church, and paying the dues regu- larly, should be continued in the same pews, unless they desired to change them — that this was the practice in St. Andrew's Church until this case arose, he knew both as a pew-holder and a Trustee. I am not aware that this testimony as to usage in this particular congregation, was i ! I 15 high-handed procedure, contrary to the whole genius of our eolesiastical system, as well as to express laws, that the mere financial or temporal agents of a Church should arrogate to themselves the power to exclude any member of the Church from a participation in Christian ordinances, much less a high spiritual office-bearer of the Church, which Mr. Johnston at the time was, — as they virtually did by refusing to let him a pew. It is a mere quibble to say that this refusal did not necessarily drive Mr. Johns- ton from the Church. It is amazing that, as matter of fact, it had not that effect ; but that it was designed to accomplish that result cannot be questioned. The letter from the Trustees makes this plain. Besides, Dr. Camp- bell, with admirable candor, acknowledged that it was because of the alleged annoyance to which the minister of the Church was subjected in the Session by Mr. Johnston's presence in it, that he as a Trustee was led to advise the course which was pursued towards Mr. Johnston, in the expectation of ridding the Session of him. I am sure that that gentleman, and the other gentlemen of sense and shrewdness associated with him in the trust, never thought of the far-reaching consequences — the blow struck at the rights of members and at the liberties of the spiritual courts, involved in their act, or they could never have been persuaded to be instrumental in giving so terrible a wrench to the constitution of the Church. For, even though the power to do as they did, lay obviously in their hands, the inexpediency of exercising it, and the serious strain that would be laid upon the w^hole machinery of the Church, ought surely to have occurred to them. I cannot believe that they w ould have lent themselves to outraging consciously the inalienable rights of any man, had they foreseen the full bearings of their act. It may be that the Trustees who were in office at the time, when this outrage was perpetrated, are proprietors of pews, and therefore may regard themselves as safe from being treated in the same manner at some future time ; but what se- 16 !! I i^ 11 ! • 11 i ! hi!! * curity has any person in the congregation, other than proprietors of pews, that he can continue a member of the Church* if the Trustees at their own option have it in their pow<^r to close out not only a member of the Church, but their own ecclesiastical superior, an elder, to whom, in virtue of his office, they owe respect and obedience ? Nay, if they can shut the pews against elders, what secu- rity has the minister that they shall not shut the pulpit against him ? It might be thought that the fact of the minister's being ex officio a member of the Board of Trus- tees secures him against any violation of his rights, but I suppose he can be overruled by a majority of the Trustees. And if it be urged that a minister can be shut out of a Church only by the action of ecclesiastical courts, I answer that an elder cannot be deprived of his status either, ex- cept by the spiritual courts. And if it be said that Article XVII. of the By-Law^s, which places the custody of the keys of the Church in the Minister's hands, is a further security for the Minister again^it being excluded, the very same article, a few words further on, shews that during a vacancy or the absence of the Minister, it might have fallen to the lot of Mr. Johnston, as a member of the Kirk- Session, to take charge of the keys. Yet in spite of the apparent security which this article gave him against being hindered in the discharge of his spiritual duties, the result was that the Trustees thought to ride rough- shod over him. I have argued the last point, on the sup- position that the Trustees acted arbitrarily, and without reasons assigned. To have done so would have been bad enough, we haA*e seen, for if they could shut out one elder they could shut them all out — but the case becomes greatly aggravated when they assign as a reason for their action, Mr. Johnston's conduct. The moment they take it upon them to judge of conduct and character, they usurp the functions that belong to the Church courts alone. . ._:■, , --.-^ . _:■ ,•;•.:;; ^ I have already remarked that Mr. Justice Johnson ex- 17 «rcised a wise discrimination in taking- no notice of the evidence in disparagement of Mr. Johnston's character led by the Defendants in Ju.stihcation of their action ti>wards him. But although he made no apparent use of this mass of evidence, it was pubHshed in the city press, aud designed to convey the impression that Mr. Johnston was so intolerably bad a man that he was unlit to be as- sociated with Christian people. Moreover, if the Judge did not take cognizance of the attempt to justil'y them- iselves on the part of the Defendants, for dealing as they did with the riaintilf, their olfence against ecclesiastical order and decency is none the less on that account. It is Jit this point that the case begins specially to concern the Church Courts. I ma^' say for myself that I lind little or no interest in the suit until I heard Dr Campbell avow that it was because of Mr. Johnston's conduct in the Se-ssion, and at a public meeting of the Congregation, that the Trustees took the course they did. I had before that protested to the Counsel ibr the PlaintiH', against being smgled out from the Clergy of the Presbytery to give evi- dence in the case, as I did not wish to be mingled up with the matter. I fancied that the Defendants would Test their case upon the Act of Incorporation and By-Laws, and contend that they Avere empowered by these to act as they did. Had they confined their defence to this jjround, or to the ground His Honor occupied in his judgment, I should not have cared very much about the case, as it would then at most affect St. Andrew's Congre- gation alone ; and although it might entail disagreeable consequences upon them, yet, if they were satisfied with leaving their spiritual rights at the mercy of their Trustees, no one else need be concerned much about it. But as soon as I perceived that the Trustees, in their defence were determined to pour contempt upon the spiritual ooarts to which they owed obedience, by raking up matters that had been settled in the Presbytery and Synod, I felt that the case was no longer James Johmton B • 18 II ;,iii VS. The Minister attfi Trustees of St. Andrew's Church, but it was the ecc/esiastiral Courts against the Jinancial Manag'ers of the Congregation. I coni'eiss that from that moment I waK no longer an nj^athetic spectator, having no special interest in the case. T felt that I should be utterly want- ing in duty to the constitution of the Church of which I have the honor to be a Minister, if I did not do all in my power to subvert legitimately the pretensions of the De- fendants. When I was ordained to the ministry I took the loUowing oath of office : " that if any encroachment on the supreme power and authority (that of the Synod in spiritual matters) shall be attempted or threatened, by any person or person^, 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.'* As the Trustees set themselves against the Church courts, I could not in view of the foregoing declaration, look on indifferently. The Trustees arrogated to themselves the power of judging Mr. Johnston, and coming to conclusions adverse to him ; they determined that he should no longer rule over them as an elder, and to make sure of this they would no longer afford him sitting room in the Church. Now, the constitution of the Church of Scotland, both in Scotland and in Canada, provides that there is only one way in which an elder can be dealt with if he misconducts himself. He is to be formally charged and tried by his peers in the Session alone, or the matter is, by consent of parties, referred to the court next higher, the Presbytery. He takes rank above the rest of the congregation, and above the Trustees ; and for either the temporal authorities of the Church, or the congregation at large, to assume the right to pronounce upon his conduct, is a gross irregularity. Now, at the time when the Trustees informed Mr. Johnston that they would not let him a pew in the Church, he was a member of the Kirk-Session in good standing, and con- tinued to be so for some time afterwards. He got the notice from them on 7th December, 1872, and we find him still 10 they iirch. th ill one ducts peers (fcirties, takes e the f the ght to Now, nstoii e was con- Inotice still Teceiving calls to attend meetings of Session np to 28rd January, 1873. It is clear, then, that the action of the Trustees was meant to coerce Mr. Johnston in his course as a member of vSession. The letter he received from Mr. Wardlow on the 7th December, and the testimony of Dr. Campbell, make this manliest. The latter concluded his straia'htforward evidence bv ackno\vledi»'ina: thiit the Trus- tees in an interview with Mr. Johnston, after the action complained of, otl'ered to continue liini in the possession of his pew, provided he would rci^i^ti his st'dl in the Session. If this was not an attempt on the part of the temporal autho- rities of the Church to override the spiritual, I do not know how the action can be desig-nated. What the pro- per functions of the Trustees are we iind laid down in the Constitution and By-Laws ot the Church — they are con- fined purely to managing the tinances and guarding the property. Here is how the law of the Church defines the functions oi^ the Session: "The business of a Session is to regulate all matters relating to the worship of Lrod, and the spiritual government of the congrt^uation; in particu- lar, to take an oversight of the members in respect of their walk and conversation, and to care for the relie I have cjuoted from the polity of the Church invests them with the duty o[ reg-f^hiting' all nint/crs relalinii; (o /lie wors/iip of (UxL And that it is the Kirk-Se^sion who ore responsible for the rig-ht ordering of alfairs in the Church, and not tlie Trustees, is manifest from the fact that with them, and not with the Trustees, lies the custody of the keys o'" the Church, both by a gene- ral resolution of the Synod and by By-Law XVII. of St. Andrew's Church. In the case of disturbance, as sup- posed by the Judge, it would be the duty of Ihe Kirk- session to interfere, and this they would do by their church officer, " who," we are informed in Cook's Styles, " carries out the orders of the Session, and executes its summonses." His Honor, who seemed to attach importance to this point, had his attention directed to it subsequently in the address of the Counsel for the PlaintilK I believe I have now touched on all the material points bearing on the merits of this case, and I think the conclu- sion logically arrived at is that when the nature of tho trust is taken into account, and when the Act of Incorpo- ration and By-Laws of St. Andrew's Church are interpre- ted in the light of the past history of the Congregation, and of the constitution of the Church of Scotland, specially cited in the Charter, as well as of the regulations of our own Church in Canada, the Trustees have utterly trans- cended their powers, and have acted in a very high-handed manner towards Mr. Johnston. 21 Here my task ought to terminate. But the worst has yet to be told as to the treatment of both Mr. Johnston and the Church courts by the Defendants. To the follow- ing resume of facts I do not think exception will be taken. First. An elder in our Church is appointed (ul vitam aut culpam. He is "in orders," to use an English Church phrase, as well as the Minister, and his orders are equally " indelible." His duties consist in advising with the Minister, in aiding him to govern the congregation, and in taking part in all the work that belongs to the Session. He has an equal voice with the Minister in the Session, the only superiority which the latter has lying in his being the only qualified Moderator or Chairman of the Session. Indeed, the Moderator's duties do not lead him to vote pxci^pt when there is a tie between the other elders. His bu si I leys is to moderate, to guide the discussion, to de- cide imimrtially between the other members of Session, when a dilierence of opinion exists, — but hi" very position and title preclude him from identifying himself with a party in the Session. Secondit/, Mr. Johnston was chosen and ordained as an elder in St. Andrew's Church, and it may be presumed he was thought specially qualified fop the office or he would not hare been selected out of the large congregation worshipping there. It is now said that he was specially un^t for that office, on account of in- iirmities of temper and obstinacy of opinions. But that was a point that should have been settled before he was put into office. He was no stranger in Montreal at that time. He had long occupied a prominent position as a merchant in the city, and was perfectly known in eccle- siastical circles, both for his zeal in aiding the enterprizes of the Church at large, and for the tenacity with which he held his opinions on church matters. Indeed, he probably would never have been identified with St. An- drew's congregation, had it not been for this characteris- tic. Yet, with this record well known, he was created an elder of St. Andrew's Church. It having seemed ffood ml !l! oo to that congregation to take this step, no one else had any right to interfere ; but it is with a congregation in choosing an elder, as it is with a man in choosing his wife — it is a serious business — it is an engagement for life. A man can. take to himself a wife, but he cannot, anywhere else at least than in the neighbourhood of Chicago, put her away at his own option, merely for " incompatibility of temper," The Civil Courts alone can dissolve thtir union, unless they choose to live apart, and that only for the most serious crinu\s. It is precisely a parallel condition of things that we find in the case before us. Once a Session invites a man to join them, and invests him with the character of an elder, they cannot thrust him out contrary to his will, because he can crave the protection of the higher courts; and these courts do not allow elders to have their orders taken from them except for the most serious causes. Thirdlij^ Mr. Johnston discharged the duties of an elder to the apparent satisfaction of the other members of the Session lor a considerable time after his ordination. At length, however, an issue arose in the Session on which he diii'ered with several of the elders, and on which he, an old man, naturally conservative, felt strongly. Fourflil//, The result was not only a collision with certain other members of the Session, in which, however, he did not stand alone, as he was sustained by a considerable portion of the members, but also with his minister, whom he accused of casting in his influence with the party to whose views he (Mr. Johnston) was opposed. He addressed a priated circular to the congregation in which he gave expression to his views in a plain, blunt way, using uncourtly language, and throwing out insinu- ations against his minister that were certainly offensive. For this very unwise and irregular procedure he was suspended from his office of elder for six months by the Session, the other members, not unnaturally, being indig- nant with him for taking such questionable means to make his views prevail, and especially desirous of shield- 23 ing their recently settled and popular minister from the attack they thought Mr. Johnston had made upon him. Against this action of the Session Mi. Johnston appealed io the Presbytery, in which the judgment of the Session was sustained by the casting vote of the Moderator. The case was further taken by appeal to the Synod, oii two grounds mainly, that the Session had not proceeded against Mr. Johnston as the forms f law demanded, and that even had they done so, and were all true that was •charged against Mr. Johnston, it would not constitute so great an otfence as to warrant their suspending him from his office. The Synod without discussion, unanimously came to a finding substantially vindicating the character of Mr. Johnston, and confirming him in his eldership; -and this decision was acquiesced in by the Session.. Here, according to all law and order, the matter took end. I have acknowledged that even voluntary ecclesiastical courts can be held to account before the civil courts, for their deliverance's, when these injuriously atiect those against whom they are pronounced, but this can never be done afterwards, unless the parties cause their dissent to be recorded at the time, which was not done in this case — neither was the Synod cited to appear before the Supe- rior Court in Montreal — and therefore I hold that it was highly contumacious, and argued supreme contempt for the Synod, whose jurisdiction their own By-Laws compel them to acknowledge, for them to drag this matter before the Civil Court, or to refer in any way to what was finally disposed of. That is count Number One. Here is another circle of facts : 1. For several months after the settlement of the case before the Synod, all was going quietly in the Session, when a new issue arose about St. John's (French) Church. Mr, Johnston in the Session opposed the majority of the members, who proposed to apply to the Presbytery for leave to occupy St. John's Church, as a territorial Mission C5hurch, At a meeting held in the Church on the 4th r 24 i' ■ ! i ! iili November, 1872, the proposal of the majority of the Ses- sion was approved of by the congregation then assem- bled, Mr. Johnston alone dissenting. At this m«eeting an unpleasant scene took place, Mr. Johnston, irritated, as he alleges, by an accusation brought against him, which he declares to be false, became excited, and seemed to con- tradict the minister who occupied the chair, and conducted himself in such a manner as alienated from him- some of those in the congregation who had hitherto been favor- ably disposed towards his views, resulting in a unanimous request on the part of those present that he should with- draw from the Session. 2. The Presbytery the next day declined to entertain the proposals of the St. Andrew's Kirk-Session and con- gregation, on the ground that St. John's Church wa» not at the disposal of the Presbytery ; and thus the views of Mr. Johnston on this question prevailed over those of th« rest of the Session and the entire congregation. Yet not-^ withstanding that the result of this difference of opinion between him and the Session and congregation was to create new trouble in the Session, he continued to attei*d the meetings of Session and to receive notice of them np^ to 23rd Januarv, 1873. 3. Meanwhile a correspondence was carried on betweeu- the Minister of St. Andrew's Church and Mr. Johnston, with the view of procuring the retirement of the latter from the Session, Mr. Johnston failing to respond to the call of the congregation and the solicitations of the min- ister, refusing to withdraw from the Session under com- pulsion, and asking that specific charges should' be laid against him and that he should have a fair trial,, on the 7th December received from the secretary to the tru&tees^ a copy of the following resolution — that document which, gave rise to the present action — "Montreal, Dec. 7th, 1872. " That in order to sustain the action of the congregation,, taken in regard to Mr. James Johnston at its meeting on. u the evening of the 4th Nov. last, the frustees do now decline to let a pew to Mr. James Johnston for the ensu- ing year — carried, A. Buntin dissenting." •' s Notwithstanding this notice, Mr. Johnston still attended the meetings of the Session, and at this time Ihere seems- to have been no disposition to proceed against him eccle- siastically, for any alleged unruly conduct at the congre- gational meeting on the 4th November. 4. Meanwhile, a new complication arose : Mr. Johnston^ instituted an action before the civil court for damages against a member of the Session, for alleged defamation of character by an accusation, which he maintained wa&. false, made against him at the meeting on the 4th Nov. 5. And it is very suggestive that it was soon after this action was instituted, but some time after the declared offence was committed, that Mr. Johnston was formally arraigned before the Session for having behaved scandal- ously towards his minister and the whole congregation on the 4th Nov., and not pleading before them, on ther- untenable ground that he could not expect justice at their- hands, the Session found him guilty and passed sentence of deposition upon him. 6. He appealed to the Presbytery from this sentence,, and while the appeal was being prosecuted before the Presbytery, and a member was speaking to a motion pro- posing to reduce the sentence of deposition and order a a new trial, the representatives of the Session offered to- withdraw their sentence and restore Mr. Johnston to his status as an elder, provided he would retire from the Ses- sion when thus restored. By consent of Presbytery this was done. Mr. Johnston's appeal was fallen from, the^ sentence of deposition was recalled, and Mr. Johnston handed in his resignation. Subsequently the Session ac- cepted his resignation. - . 7. The law of the Church is that when a suit is aban- doned all the evidence led regarding it ceases to be evi- dence, or to be of any value, and so is destroyed. Here- , ip ■ I liil Mi;; ii, is the text of the Church's law : " Minutes of the whole proceedings shall be regularly kept by the Clerk of the Court, but shall not be entered on the permanent records until the trial has been completed. If the accused is ac- quitted, these minutes shall be then destroyed ; and the only record entered shall be a statement that such charge liad been made, and that the party had been acquitted " This trial was ?>ever completed inasmuch as the deliver- ance of the Session was immediately appealed from, and therefore the law quoted above was the law by which the Session of St. Andrew's, Church were bound to regu- late their subsequent procedure. They were under obli- gations to see that everything relating to the trial of Mr. -Johnston was destroyed. But to make sure that nothing should remain on the records of the Session, prejudicial to him in this matter, Mr. Johnston stipulated with the Committee of Presbytery that conferred with him regard- ing his resignation of the eldership in St. Andrew's Church, that he would not resign unless he was assured that these minutes should be destroyed. The Committee assured him. that this would follow as a necessary consequence from the withdrawal of the sentence and charge of the Session, and that they would see to it that the Presbytery should give the necessary instructions to the Kirk-Session aiient the deleting of the minutes. The Presbytery acted on the Committee's suggestion ; and the Minister of St. Andrew's Church, and the elder representing the Session in the Presbytery, seemed to undertake with alacrity and thaniulness, that this deleting would be duly attended to. And yet, will it be believed, that these minutes that now have no /ep^al existence, have been made use of by the De- fendants in the present suit ? Incredible as it would ap- pear, such has been the case. The factum, prepared by the Session, for resisting Mr. Johnston's appeal before the Presbytery, was amongst the papers put into Court by the Defendants ! How this can be reconciled with honour, justice, and truth, I cannot understand. Why the Plain- 27 tiffs Counsel suffered this document to be put in as evi- dence, without protest, I cannot comprehend ; they ought certainly lo have resisted it ; and had they done so, the Judge would have been obliged to inquire into the eccle- siastical regulations bearing upon the question. I trust that whe'^ the Presbytery comes to inquire whether the minutes refe. :,ed to have been destroyed or not, some satisfactory explanation can be given of how these minutes came into the hands of the Defendants in this case, and that it will appear that they made use of the factum spoken of in op- position to the wishes of the Minister of the Church, not- withstanding that he was a party to the suit, and of the representative elder, although he was one of the counsel for the defence. =^ So far as the last process instituted in the Session against Mr. Johnston is concerned, it termi- nated in his full acquittal, and he is now an elder in good standing, as the Session acknowledged by accepting his resignation — although no longer an elder in that particu- lar congregation. When the Session offered to withdraw their sentence and charge, and the Presbytery consented * Since tlie above was in type, the Presbytery liave met, and to my utter amazement the representatives of the Sjssion have denied having given any pledge regaiding the deleting of the minutes. The representative elder says that he undertook to see the sentence of deposition removed on condition that the rest of the Session approved of it. But that there were no condi- tions attached to the olfor to remove the sentence is manifest from the fact that the Presbytery acted upon the offer, which they would not have done had it not amounted to an absolutt! undertaking. There must have been entire reliance in tlie good faith of tlie Session on the part of the Presbytery at large, and especially of tlie Committee of Presbytery that succeeded in getting Mr. Jolinston to resign, or they would never have been parties to tlie transaction. And to show that the Presbytery felt that the matter was d(^fi- nitely settled, without conditions, they kept no minutes regarding it, which surely they would have done, if the removal of tlie sentence of deposition, which is another phrase for destroying all records of the trial, was conditional \ipon the terms of settlement being ratified by the other members of Sessionj And it appears they did ratify the offer of their representative, because they accepted Mr. Johnston's resignation, which was given upon the good faith of that oifer. Unless we are to conclude that the whole Session justified the course taken by the Minister and representative elder, we should have to 28 ^•ii ■ ' ' to this course, this was the legal end of the whole ques- tion, and it was positively indecent as well as illegal after- wards to rake up matters which the Session themselves had buried. And seeing that the Minister and his repre- sentative elder may yet have to account to the Church courts for their conduct in having apparently counten- anced a proceeding directly in the face of the authority of the Church, I say no more on this point. But inasmuch as they have chosen to drag the details of Mr. Johnston's opposition at the meeting of the congre- gation on Monday the 4th Nov. 1872, before the public, at the late trial, as if his conduct on that occasion was of a character so damaging as to warrant the most violent pro- ceedings against him, I claim the right to offer a few re- marks upon the proceedings of that Monday night's meet- ing. Had the action of the Session in deposing Mr. John- ston from the eldership, on account of his conduct at that meeting, gone for review before the higher ecclesiastical caurts, I do not doubt that the judgment of the Session would have been reversed. I for one would have been rm I accuse them of being parties to a trick to Rocure the result, the retirement of Mr. Johnston, without sanctioning the condition made by their representa- tive, the removal of the sentence. At all events, if the representative elder found that he could not obtain the consent of his colleagues in tin; Session to the arrangement which he proposed, he was bound to protest against their acting upon it, which he od oifence for w'^hich Mr. Johnston was de- posed by the Session was not sufficient to justify them in proceeding to that sentence, notwithstanding that he committed the grave error of not attempting to defend himself by challenging the evidence taken against him, is manifest from their subsequent readiness to withdraw their sentence. Had Mr. Johnston committed a serious crime, they were in duty bound to see that he was ade- quately punished for that crime ; and it would be like compounding a felony for them to reduce their sentence. And that the Presbytery were of the same mind as to Mr. Johnston's alleged offence is manifest from their action in allowing the Session to withdraw their sentence. And when the condition on which the Session otfered to clear Mr. Johnston's character is taken into account, we are forced to the conclusion that it was not to mark their abhorrence of his crime that he was dealt with, but to get rid of his presence in the Session — and that the solemn forms of ecclesiastical procedure, meant for the punishment of heinous sins, were unwarrantably prosti- tuted to the accomplishment of this end. The great mis- take made by Mr. Johnston, was in not directly commu- nicating with his minister and offering an explanation and apology as soon as he discovered that he had been misin- formed. But it is not customary in these days to hang men for want of courtesy. This is the conclusion one must come to, even admitting all t»he evidence led before the Session, to show that Mr. Johnston had accused his minister of keeping] back the " Presbyterian " ; but I am bound to say that the evidence on that point is far from conclusive. Mr. Johnston emphatically denies having made such an accusation, and his assertion is borne out by the short-hand notes of the expert reporter whose ser- vices he had taken the precaution beforehand to secure. The testimony afforded by the report of this latter gentle- 81 man is more to be trusted for accuracy and impartiality^ than the vague recollections of members of the congregar- tion taken down two or three months after the occurrence to which they related. The only person whom Mr. Johns- ton says he reflected on was the church officer, and he apologized to him as soon as it was discovered that the express had not delivered the parcel : and thus Mr. Johns- ton made what reparation he could for the injury that hi*^ had been misled by false information into doing to the only person whom he maintains he had wronged. As to the action of the congregation in passing an opinion upon Mr. Johnston's duty in relation to the Session, I hold that that was entirely vllra vires, and that the minister, who w^as presiding on that occasion, ought not to have allowed the congregation to take so unconstitutional a step A great deal has been made of the unanimity with which the congregation acted in asking Mr. Johnston to resign.. But any minister who occupies a high place in the esti- mation of his people, and whose constant business it is to control popular assemblies, could easily get his congrega- tion arrayed against an elder, especially if that elder lacked popular talents and had committed awkward blunders in their presence, as Mr. Johnston did. But it. does not follow that they, guided by their minister, though unanimous, should necessarily be right, even if it were* consistent with the impartiality and dignity of a chairman to incite one party in a meeting to take action againsi an- other party. It is said in justiiication of the course takeR in obtaining an expression of the people's wishes, that Mr,. Johnston had previousl)'^ said that as he had owed his election to the people, he would only retire at the ex- pressed wish of the people. In this Mr. Johnston was;, wrong. The people have the nomination of elders, but the right of selecting and ordaining elders resides in the Session only. So that Mr. Johnston being astray in hi» ecclesiastical law, this was no reason why the congrega- tion should be allowed, or prompted, to arrogate to them- "1^ ¥S' V -:in 82 : selves the authority that belongs to the Church courts aloJie. ., ,' ■ ,:•■ .'*,-. 'V :, !>., , < . f In conclusion, I beg; to say that I am no apologist for Mr. Johnston. I am under no ol)ligiitionH to him, nor do I expect to be. Had I been his counsellor, and had he acted on my advice, he would certainly hav^e taken a very dilf'erent course from what he did. I see much to condemn both in what he has done and in his manner of doing it ; but that does not prevent my seeking to hinder his being outlawed lor the tenaciousness of his opinions and the abruptness of his speech. His very failings lean to virtue's side. If he is to be driven outside the pale of a Christian congregation because he contends persistently for what he deems the right, then the nation to which he belongs will have to be placed outside the Christian nations. That in him the national qualities are exagge- rated, may be true ; but every discerning mind will see in him a genuine Scot. " They used to 6>ay in the middle ages, ' Nemo Scotus sine pijfere in naso,' and now it is a proverb on the Continent, ' Fier comvie Ecosaois.' " This is an extract from a letter of the celebrated Edward Irving to the late Dr. W. Anderson of G-lasgow. Irving adds, " My notion is that in the commonwealth of nations the Scotch have been set to show forth the indomitable- ness of man under all outward assaults and oppressions from without ; the adamantine resistance — the asbestos unconsumableness." We are accustomed to laud our an- cestors for the steadfastness and valour with which they contended for their Christian liberties ; and that cannot surely be a crime in one of their descendants which was a virtue in them. Mr. Johnston has hitherto been a proved friend and benefactor of the church of his fathers, and, in my estimation, it argues more than obstinacy on his part, namely, loyal attachment to the principles of that Church, in an age and city that cannot count many martyrs to principle, that he still adheres to it. I can easily conceive that many of those who condemn him for A i iiii! i his tenacity of purpose, would flee to any other church, even to that of the Uesu, rather than submit to the harsh treatment to which, I believe, he has been subjected. Some may think I have made too much of mere ecclesi- astical irregularity in this review. They may be inclined to the belief that substantial justice. has been done in the premises, even though the laws of the church were trampled upon. Those who take this view are probably of opinion that ecclesiastical regulations are only useless forms, and that it is of little consequence to the interests of religion whether they are observed or not. But such persons need to be told that these regulations are not of an ideal or arbitrary kind merely, imposed as a Utopian scheme, without reference to the need and advantage of those to whom they apply. They are rather the product of experience, and have been formed to meet the need of cases as they have arisen from time to time in the past history of the Church ; and in preserving them consists the only guarantee for the rights and liberties of all par- ties connected with the Church. Even though Mr. Johns- ton were the w^orst man in the community, and it were not possible to shake him off from the congregation by regular process, it would be perilous to sanction irregu- larity ; for that irregularity might be employed the next time against a more deserving person. I have studiously avoided personal references in this discussion. Any other name might be substituted for that of Mr, Johnston (except in the last paragraph), any other minister, session and trustees for those of St. An- drew's Church. It is a question in i/iesi, so far as I am concerned, no matter what ecclesiastical personages figured in it. But I should be justified in holding that the very position of commanding influence, occupied by St. Andrew's congregation, made it more imperatively necessary for the ecclesiastical authorities in this case to resist the slightest inroad upon their rights. Had it been an obscure rural congregation that was involved, so mucli c . . 84 injury to the Church could not result, as must result if no restraint is put upon the trustees of St. Andrew's Church. Although the prosecution wrk directed against the Minister as well as the Trustees of the Congregation, that I suppose was on account of the legal designation of the Corporation, and I do not regard my con/rare^ Mr. Lang, as necessarily to be held responsible for the course of the defence : he is only one of many. 1 am loath to believe, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary in this case, that a gentleman who stands so deservedly high in the estimation not only of his own flock, but of the public generally, for his heartiness, energy, public spirit, and ready talents, should hazard injury to his influence and reputation by advising a line of defence that, what- ever temporary ends it could gain, could only react un- favorably upon his own office as minister and moderator of Session, as soon as the matter came to be thoroughly understood.* It might be convenient to get rid of the presence of a troublesome member of Session by cutting the Grordian knot, Alexandrine fashion ; but I fain hope Mr. Lang was no party to the act of the Trustees in trampling upon the prerogatives of the Session and Pres- bytery ; for while he is only accidentally a member of the Trustees, it is essential to his office to be Moderator of Session and a member of Presbytery. • • • I do not know that it is necessary to give reasons for this publication. Imj^artial readers, I believe will infer ♦ As in duty bound I was inclined to give Mr. Lnuii; tiio bciicttt of tho doubt in this connection, althouf^h a witness friendly to liim testified that the action of the Trustees was taken under a tlireat of resignation from t!ie Minister. But since the above was written and set up, he intinuited at the Presbytery the aquiesconee of the Session in the procedure of the Trusteeg, and wished others to regard tiie two distinct bodies, tiie Session and Trustees, as identical in the law suit. Of course, it does not follow that because tlie Session were consenting parties to the action complained of, therefore that action was not subversive of their authority. It only makes matters worse by showing that the Session could condescend to disparage their own office in order to get rid of Mr. Johnston when they found it difficult to derator rouffhly of the cutting in hope stees in id Pres- mber of >derator .•:!■■ :./U^i i sons for ill infer icttt of tho stifled tliat n from the uted at th(! V, TiiiHtoes, d Tiii«ttos, (ecause tin; iiefore that iters worse own ottiit! do this by from the nature of the case that no other course was left for me in consideration of my convictions and my ordina- tion vows. This case was removed by the Plaintilfbeyond the reach of ecclesiastical law, inasmuch as the Trustees were a corporate body, recogni/ed by the law of the land, and might have pleaded that they w^ere not answerable to the Church Courts ; so that no opj)ortunity can otfer for reviewing it before an ecclesiastical tribunal ; and un- less it were exposed through the press, the gross violation of the rights of our people would escape censure alto- gether. The newspaper conductors of this country have neither the knowledge of these matters necessary for deal ing with them successfully, nor are the generality of their readers sufficiently interested in such questions to make it worth their while to give up their columns to discus- sions upon them. But I can fancy what a storm of indig- nation would find expression in the press of Scotland, if the authorities of any church in that country, could have ventured to violate the rights of a member and elder of the church, as the St. Andrew's Church corporation has done ! l^esides, in a letter to the Herald on the 10th Nov. 1873, to which I w^as not permitted to reply, Mr. Lang challenged my declaration that " the rights of church members " and " the prerogatives of spiritual courts " were involved in this suit, — he replied that they " were not in this particular instance endangered by the dealing of the temporal authorities." As I felt it was scarcely a proper thing to have carried on a public correspondence on the question, even to the extent I did, when the mat- ter was in the hands of the judge, I took no further steps at that time to defend my position, and bore with as good a grace as I could, the disadvantage under which I was placed by the Ilera/d^s allowing Mr. Lang the last word. But now that judgment has been rendered, I feel freed from that restraint. "^' ** • In that letter Mr. Lang also says, *' It is better that one minister of the Gospel should not meddle or interfere wuth m the concerns of another." As Mr. Lang was careful not to accuse me of doing so, but merely laid down a general principle, in which I heartily concur, it is not necessary for me to say anything in defence of my own particular conduct in connection with this case and other cases in which St. Andrew's Church has been concerned. When the affairs of that congregation came from time to time before the Presbytery, through internal dissensions, it was always a most painful and disagreeable business to have anything to do with them. But in a Presbyterian church, congregations have no complete autonomy, as they have in those churches maintaining the policy of Independency ; but are only individual links in a chain, each running into the other, and so forming parts of the other. According to the constitution of our Church, each congregation is in some measure responsible for every other congregation's conduct. This is the theory of the Church. Whether it is the best policy, ideally or not, is not the question at issue. Mr. Lang's plea for being allowed to manage the affairs of his congregation as he pleases, is therefore directly in the face of the constitution of the Church, even though the congregation were unani- mous. So long as St. Andrew's congregation enjoys the pres- tige and privileges that accrue to it from belonging to the Presbyterian Church of Canada in, connection with the Church of Scotland, it must accept the surveillance that the Church imposes. The Synod assumes supreme jurisdic- tion " in regard to all matters, ecclesiastical and spiritual, over all the ministers, elders, church members, and congre- gations under its care." And every member of Synod has therefore the right to take cognizance of how congregations carry out the principles of the Synod, and to draw the attention of the Church courts to anything he may deem irregular in congregational action. If any member of the Presbytery has a right of his own motion thus to call at- tention to the affairs of St, Andrew's Church, much more (Jit^; ■ 'jlu U'Oi: I ?■• ; *, I H lii 8t iful not general icessary rticular iases in When to time lions, it iness to )yterian )my, as olicy of El chain, 5 of the ch, each r every ^ of the r not, is r being n as he ^titution 3 UHani- the pres- g to the A^ith the that the jurisdic- ipiritual, 1 congre- '^nod has egations raw the ly deem 3r of the > call at- ch more has he the right when members of that congregation bring these affairs under his notice, and call for judgment upon them, to express his views regarding them. The right of appeal to the Presbytery from the action of Sessions and congregations has always been regarded as the palladium of our Church — equally in the interests of minister and people. And in this manner the " concerns " of St. An- drew's Church have been brought before other ministers, very much to their disgust, and they are not justly charged, even by insinuation, with interfering in the affairs of that congregation when they express their honest opinions upon these affairs as brought regularly under the review of the Prjsbytery. It fell to me, failing any one else, to move more than once in the Presbytery, resolutions vindicating Mr. Johnston ; and now I may be expec- ted to defend my views, when they are assailed, out- side the ecclesiastical courts. I can appeal to my past record as a proof that I have always stood by my brethren in tne maintenance of their rights ; but I do not think the esprit du corps makes it necessary for a minister to endorse any irregularities of which he may believe his confreres gu ty. Further, I know for a fact that many judicious laymen outside of St. Andrew's Church had their faith in the wisdom of Kirk-Sessions considerably shaken by the course taken by that of St. Andrew's Church in their treatment of Mr. Johnston ; and therefore the interests of the Church at large call for this protest aga'inst the part they have taken in these transactione. No man of any independence of mind or vigour of thought could be «,,ot to accept the officfe of elder, it he were liable to be thrust out of the Session by violence for maintaining firmly his own opinions ; so that the future standing of Sessions de- pends upon the vindication of Mr. Johnston's rights. And if it be said that it is invidious in a clergyman to set himself to criticise a decision of the civil courts, I have only to reply, that 1 have myself sat as a judge (ecclesi- iiiliflj ftfitical) ott part 6f the case which Was bi'oiiglit tinder tke notice of Mr. Justice Johnston, and therefore it is only one judge maintaining his own position and criticising the decision of another judge, which is no uncommon thing in the domain of both civil and ecclesiastical affairs. : --^(-i .Iv. ii "t 'W'ir J'Xi'. *fc ,j>'^ V'" ■,■7; ' .''X^S ' ' _ f ,; . . . ) . i i.,'*;"J *. =■, -'!'i.,u ;.■•_■ ^". ; - ■■•::^: i ■ ■ i I" ( , , . 1-- 1 ■' ■ !■ ■ . . - = *,.']. (ii %*\ "'i J,' ,>e. . ..'-^ ■'; ; -K .fly. i ■ lii'iinf: ■;'') 5: /-it lit: f >■ ( ♦' 't ) •». (M; < « .15,' '«> , i',-'4>w .t;;t ti "fif ';>.! <^ n;^-:: *M