صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

of the different colleges. Highbury should have 45; when I was there, two years ago, there was just about half that number. Cheshunt, the Countess of Huntingdon's, with Dr Harris, the author of Mammon,' Dr P. Smith, &c., is far from being full, not more than eighteen. At Coward College, where there is sometimes provision made for eighteen, there are only eight or ten." I believe it may be safely asserted, that the Dissenting Colleges generally are not attended by half the students they can accommodate, and for whom, if they had them, they could pay the entire expense. Now, observe what the entire expense means there. It does not mean gratuitous education merely, but bed, board, and washing. (Laughter.) They give them everything mortal man requires, and that sumptuously, in the highest degree. Every student costs them at the rate of about £100 a-year; and yet they can only get eight in one institution to take £100 a-year to study with a view to the ministry. (Hear.) Yes; and that shows that it is not the mere multiplication of colleges that will secure an increase in the number of your students. I believe the cause of the falling off lies much deeper than the want of opportunities of attending in convenient places for receiving a suitable education. Without adverting to the state of the Nonconforming Churches, I would say to the Free Church of Scotland, if you wish to secure a sufficient band of pious, talented, noble-minded young men for your future ministers, you must strengthen the hands and encourage the heart of iny friend Dr Buchanan in promoting the interests of the Sustentation Fund. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) If you wish to secure young men of independent spirit, and none I trust, but such will ever be allowed to succeed the ministers of the Disruption-(cheers)-you must look to it well, when you are placed under them in their particular charges, that they be maintained in a position of independence-I don't mean merely in regard to their pecuniary circumstances, but to personal liberty and comfort in the exercise of the duties of their office amongst the people of their respective charges. (Loud cheers.)

Dr PATRICK M'FARLAN began by making some remarks on the importance of a high standard of theological attainment to the maintenance and advancement of pure and undefiled religion in the land. Referring to the statements in the Report on the subject of the curriculum, he said he was disposed to enter his dissent from some of them, more especially the proposal respecting the exegetical professorships. He thought it was perfectly competent for the professor of Dogmatic Theology to take Exegetical Theology also, and he could not imagine that there was any necessity for two professors of that branch of theological study. He therefore considered the scheme laid down in the report defective to this extent. In reference to the establishment of an additional hall at Aberdeen and Glasgow, he thought they should aim at that as their ultimate object. He observed that, even although his friend Dr Buchanan should succeed in raising the stipends of the ministers, they must still lay their account to a large extent to draw their supplies of students from the ranks of the poorer classes of the people; and seeing it was impossible for many of them, without aid from some pecuniary source, to bear the expense of coming to Edinburgh, in order to mitigate the evil, and to put an end to partial attendance, one means was the establishment of a complete theological faculty at Aberdeen at least. Dr Cunningham, in complaining of the partial attendance at College, spoke of reducing the number of students as the remedy, considering the candidates for the ministry by far too numerous. ("No, no.") He (Dr M'Farlan) understood him to say so, but would be glad to be corrected if he had misunderstood him.

Dr CUNNINGHAM said, that what he had affirmed was, not that the candidates for the ministry were by far too numerous,—he never spoke in that strain at all; but what he said in substance was, that the candidates for the ministry at present were too numerous, and he would like to see some of them struck off by a particular process.

Dr P. M'FARLAN said, that the explanation did not materially affect his statement. They all knew that there was a great want of preachers, insomuch that they were unable to fill the vacancies which occurred, and he contended that they ought to employ all competent measures for providing a superabundance of preachers, which would enable them to overtake all the demands made upon

them. He held that the Assembly was already pledged by the act of 1845 to establish a theological faculty in Aberdeen. Nothing could be more deliberate than the manner in which that act was passed. Nothing could be more complete than the discussion it received both in committee and conference at two successive Assemblies. They could not, therefore, without some very strong reason being shown, upset the resolution then come to. He knew the talents and the sound theology of the professors in Edinburgh, and would have the utmost confidence in them, while they were spared, that they would teach nothing but what was sound, and be the means and instuments of bringing up young men in right views of Divine truth; but it had happened in former times, and it might happen again, that our theological institution might decline in this matter, there might be a falling off from the purity and strictness of Scriptural truth, and it was of immense importance that there should be more than one such institution, that they might stimulate and aid each other by their influence, in the maintenance of sound doctrine. As to the alleged difficulty of filling the chairs with competent men, he thought it was little complimentary to the Free Church, and treated it altogether as a most fallacious argument against the extension of the means of theological education. The men of eminence in the Church, on account of their nobility of mind and greatness of character and influence, did not acquire these qualities from the instructions they received, but from men, comparatively speaking, not of superior mind, but men more noted for their pious and zealous labours-" the weak things of the world" being thus made to confound "the things that are mighty." As to the means of establishing new halls, let it be made manifest in all parts of the country that there is a desire to give education to all who are willing to receive it, with the view of coming forward to the highly honourable and responsible position of the Christian ministry, and they need not despair of seeing the requisite funds pouring into the treasury of the Church. They would not be doing their duty to the Church, in these circumstances, if they did not carry out the objects which they had in view in the Act of 1845. Whether it should be done instantly or not, was not the question; but it was their duty to see that it should be done, and it was for the interest of the Free Church that it should be done as soon as possible. (Cheers.)

Dr CANDLISH Said,-The only reason why I claim to be heard after the address of my reverend father, with whose views I coincide, is because I find myself in the position of proposing for the adoption of the Assembly a different motion from either of the two now lying on your table. In the general scope and tenor of Dr Brown's motion I substantially concur; but I am unwilling that any decision of this Assembly should turn upon the consideration of the single case of Aberdeen. (Hear, hear.) I frankly avow myself one of those who think that in Glasgow, as well as in Aberdeen, the Free Church of Scotland must ultimately contemplate having a theological hall-hear, hear)—and I am anxious, therefore, that the resolution which this house may be asked to adopt should not be limited to, or even primarily set forth the peculiar claims of Aberdeen. I am quite well aware that any extension of the means of theological education must, in the first instance, take place in the direction of Aberdeen, both because of the importance of the situation of that town as the centre of the north of Scotland, and also because we have already, as Dr M'Farlan has stated, taken steps towards the commencement of a theological institute there; but at the same time I think, that on this, the first occasion when the Free Church of Scotland has, in its Supreme Court, been called to entertain the question of the extension of the means of theological education, it is of importance that the question should be presented to the Assembly in its broadest and most general aspect; and I am quite well aware, that in so presenting it to the Assembly, we subject ourselves to some disadvantage. We might have some advantages in pleading simply for the extension of the means of theological education at Aberdeen, founded upon the past proceedings of this Church, but I am content to waive altogether any such advantage, and to peril the cause upon the assertion of a general principle, which may be applicable to Glasgow as well as to Aberdeen. I shall read the motion, which I mean, with the per

mission of the house, to lay on the Assembly's table :-" The General Assembly, while they fully recognise the duty of raising the standard and improving the character of theological education, and while, in particular, they are deeply impressed with the importance of promoting the efficiency of the theological institute in Edinburgh, with especial reference to the exigencies of the age, are at the same time of opinion, that the great object of providing a well-educated gospel ministry for this Church, national as it is in its character and claims, cannot be adequately attained by means solely of a central divinity hall in the metropolis; and, with a view to ascertain how far it is possible, with reference to the pecuniary resources of this Church, to take immediate steps for extending the means of theological instruction more fully than heretofore, appoint a Committee to consider the subject, and to report to a subsequent diet of this Assembly." In the few remarks with which I mean to trouble the Assembly,for I cannot follow, at this hour, in detail, the whole of the arguments which have been so admirably put on the other side,-I shall follow, in substance, the order suggested by my respected friend, Dr Buchanan. I scarcely need, I think, to follow the example of Dr Buchanan, in making any reference whatever to the position which I personally hold in this House,-I mean the position which I happen to hold as an ex-professor of theology in the Central Hall at Edinburgh. I presume that none will speak either of him or of me as being very much influenced by such adventitious circumstances. (Hear, hear.) I happen to have been all along of opinion that the means of theological education ought to be extended. I have said so repeatedly both in Committee and in the Courts of the Church; and I have always been decidedly convinced, that while, sometimes, as it seemed to me, our Aberdeen friends pressed their claims rather unseasonably, not giving time to us to consider the subject, yet that the extension of the means of theological education beyond the limits of Edinburgh was an object which this Church ought to keep clearly, and fully, and always in view, till it be attained. (Hear, hear.) I cannot but rejoice in the opening of this question to-day. There are indeed some inconveniences and something very unpleasant connected with our being engaged in a debate on opposite sides, and in the somewhat formidable position we occupy when we are ranged against our brethren who are opposed to us. Nevertheless, if the Free Church of Scotland. will not be in a hurry, if she will take time,-if she will give the country time, -if she will give the laity, as well as the clergy time to consider the subject maturely, I have no fear of the ultimate result. I think it a very happy circumstance -I think it in some respects a providential circumstance, that thus early in our career we have been brought to entertain seriously and deliberately this great question. We have had this day brought out the two great objects which in connection with theological education, this Church ought to keep in view,-the one object being the providing of the most efficient theological instruction, and the other, the providing an adequate supply of gospel ministers for all the land. If there be any difference of opinion, in the bottom, between our friends who are opposed to us, it seems to be substantially in the order in which we place these two great ends. Our friends who are opposed to us, seem to regard as the paramount end we ought to keepfin view the raising of the standard of theological education, and providing the very highest and most efficient theological education that the Church can afford in some one place or other. We, on the other hand, are disposed to regard as the paramount object, if they must be put in competition with one another, an adequate supply of gospel ministers for all the land, and for all the exigencies of this Church both at home and abroad. I cannot but anticipate good from the bringing simply and properly before us these two great ends, which the Church ought to keep in view. I do not regard them as by any means incompatible. I do not desire to plead them as antagonistic, but I am quite free to confess, that whereas our friends on the other side are disposed to regard the raising of the standard of theological education as the paramount object, I am, on the other hand, disposed to regard the providing an adequate supply of gospel ministers for the country as the object we ought chiefly to aim at. I must make an observation as to the question of expense. It will be noted that, in the motion which I have laid on the table, the question of expense is reserved. I think that this is the fair way of ap

-

proaching and disposing of this question. (Hear, hear.) I cannot but think that our friend Dr Cunningham, and after him Dr Buchanan, in reference to this matter, in some degree,-I was going to use the somewhat coarse expression of saying that they have put the cart before the horse,-(a laugh)—I cannot but think that, in reference to this question, they began at the wrong end. (Hear, hear.) My friend Dr Buchanan says, we are asking the Church to go on in this matter in faith. Why, if it were a case similar to that of the Disruption, then I would have no hesitation in asking the Church to go on in faith; but it happens that, in the first instance, we are very far from asking the Church to go on in faith at all, we are asking the Church to walk by sight, and not by faith. All we ask is, that the Church shall fully and deliberately make the experiment. Dr Cunningham spoke of the mind of the community as being against us. He dwelt much on this point, and seemed to think that we had the strength of public opinion against us. I have the greatest possible respect for public opinion; but I will venture to say, that in this case public opinion has never been tested. (Hear.) This is the first time on which the question has been fairly raised in the Supreme Court of the Church,-it is the very first occasion on which we have fairly had the subject brought before the mind of the Christian community of Scotland. If it shall be our mind,-if it shall be our deliberate and solemn conviction that we ought to aim at the extension of the means of theological education in Scotland,-that we ought to provide theological halls in Aberdeen and in Glasgow, as well as in Edinburgh,-and if, having formed that opinion, and having stated the grounds of it, we go forth to the Christian community of Scotland; and if, when we make that appeal to them we fail in obtaining the means,—if they refuse to give us adequate resources,-why, then, I would be the very last man in the world to press for the establishment of a single hall, or a single additional theological chair. But let us, if we are so minded, make the experiment; and for that end, let us first, without reference to the question of expense at all, calmly and deliberately make up our mind whether we in our consciences consider the extension of theological education desirable; and then let us test public opinion on the subject, then let us go to the Christian community, and if they refuse to give us the means of carrying out our object, the decision is theirs, not ours; and the responsibility is on them, and not on us. (Applause.) But I deprecate the idea of introducing into this Assembly, or into this Church, anything like the principle of testing the question of duty by the question of finance. (Applause.) Let us first deliberately decide the question of duty; and then let us, not blindly, in faith going forward, as if we were entitled to reckon on miraculous interposition, but fairly putting our case before our people, let us, in dependence on God, abide the issue. (Hear, hear.) Let me just say further on this point, that I fear that we may be in danger of creating the very public opinion to which we purpose to pay deference. I do not say this in a spirit of taunting. Very far from it. But I cannot help thinking, that if, before we have settled our own minds on the subject,―if, before we have even considered the subject, we bring in the element of public opinion, the voice of the Christian community, we are in danger of creating the very feeling to which we shall afterwards be asked to defer. It is our province to create public opinion, and to lead it in the right road. This matter my motion dismisses. It proposes that we are to postpone the consideration of the question of finance, it leaves us to address ourselves to the consideration simply of what is at present the duty of this Church. I beg to say, before I pass on,-and not in the way of retaliation or retort,—that really, in point of fact, our excellent friends on the other side have just as much to do with the question of finance as we have. (Hear, hear.) According to the showing of my friend Dr Buchanan, he will have just as much difficulty in establishing an additional chair in Edinburgh as he would have in establishing an additional College at Aberdeen. Dr Buchanan exposed or brought out the financial state of the College Committee. I am glad that he has done so. It is the first time that the wants of this great institute have been fairly brought before the Church. I rejoice at this; but I beg to say that it will not do for our friends just to fling over the burden of the question of finance upon us. They must face it themselves; and I should not wonder if

it turned out that they would more easily carry the establishment of an additional chair in Edinburgh on the tide of a high public opinion in favour of the extension and advancement of theological education for all, than simply by pleading for it isolated and apart. (Loud applause.) Now, I trust that we shall have full credit given to us for not being disposed at all to resist, but rather to forward the great cause of the advancement of theological learning. My motion begins by stating that this Assembly is to keep steadily in view the duty of raising the standard, and of improving the character, of theological education; and, in particular, that this Assembly is deeply impressed with the importance of promoting the efficiency of the theological institute in Edinburgh, with especial reference to the exigencies of the age. And here I say frankly, that what I mean by this expression is, that this Church should aim at having in Edinburgh an institute thoroughly equipped with a view to all the exigencies of the age, literary and philosophical, as well as theological. What I mean is, that we should provide our central institute with the means of equipping our students so that they may be able to meet all the errors of the day. (Hear, hear.) But I would have some little hesitation, if we were to go into the subject, in altogether agreeing to the immediate adoption of the curriculum proposed by the Principal. This is a subject on which, of course, he is entitled to speak ex cathedra, and on which, therefore, I would defer greatly to his opinion; but I beg that the Assembly will observe, that it is a somewhat new thing in the Church to propose as preferable, for so he put it, even to the Chair of Historial and Polemical Theology, to establish not one, but two exegetical professors of theology. I beg to observe that this is a somewhat new thing in the Free Church of Scotland. I accord most fully with all that Dr Cunningham said as to the necessity of the study of Exegetical Theology. I am sure that we have all occasion, every week of our lives, to deplore the absence of such means when we were passing through the hall. In point of fact, when we compare the kind of lectures and instruction we got in the hall with what is now proposed, the wonder is that we have any divinity ministers in Scotland at all. (A laugh.) But seriously, we do feel, in the discharge of our professional duties every day the greatest evil from not having been trained in the science of exegetical theology. I trust that the Church will immediately take steps for supplying that great desideratum. But I have some doubts as to the necessity of a two-fold professorship; and I have serious doubts, over and above the one professor of Exegetical Theology, whether the professor should not take a much more practical subject to deal with. I have serious doubts whether, in point of fact, if we have more professors than one, he ought not rather to set himself to the training of the students in the practical habits of preaching and expounding the Word of God; for I cannot suppress my fear that, in the great and laudable anxiety to raise the standard of theological learning, we may fall into the snare of making them too critical preachers too apt students in the original tongue, instead of faithful expounders of the English Bible. (Hear, hear.) I know that in the hands of the present men, and in the hands of any man that our Church may call to the office, the students will be thoroughly safe; but we have seen examples in sister churches, and I will take leave to say that we at this day see examples—and this refers to a portion of Dr Buchanan's speech, and may probably explain the condition of the English Halls-we see in some sister churches a tendency in these days to make the ministry rather an organ for critical discussion than for the faithful and close application of God's Word to the hearts and consciences of living men. (Hear, hear.) It is not to be supposed that I in any way disparage an intimate critical acquaintance with the original tongue, but I cannot help saying that if this Church is permanently to adopt the plan of having a single theological institute, and if the routine is to be that of very high attainments in regard to critical and theological learning, I feel that we may want that benefit which the Church in former ages derived from the variety of gifts and the variety of training that were open to students, preachers, and ministers; and although they did not at all get first-rate theological education, yet by dint of native talent and application in using the resources within their reach, they came forth under diverse influences, more or less enabled to do the practical work of the Church, and to

« السابقةمتابعة »