The Committee appointed by the pro re nata meeting of Synod to draw up a report of its proceedings for the Magazine consider it necessary that some explanation be given to the readers of the Magazine of certain technical terms that emerged in course of the proceedings.
Pro re nata Meeting. A pro re nata meeting of Presbytery or Synod is a meeting called during the interval between one ordinary meeting and another, in consequence of some unexpected business having arisen which requires to be immediately attended to. Such a meeting may be called by the Moderator, either on his own initiative, or in consequence of a requisition addressed to him by the members. The specific object must be distinctly stated in the circular calling it, and no other business can be transacted by it (Moncrieff’s Practice, p. 35). It differs from an ordinary Synod in that it is limited to the business for which it is called. There is no roving commission given to any member of the Synod, whoever he is, to introduce any other business. In the case of a pro re nata meeting of Synod there must be at least three ministerial signatures to the requisition (Moncrieff, p. 75). Moncrieff further adds in regard to pro re nata meetings of Synod that they were seldom called except when the Synod, at a previous ordinary meeting, had foreseen the probable expediency of calling it, and had specially authorised the Moderator to do so. But the Act 1647 asserts the right of the Synod to assemble pro re nata as well as at ordinary times (Moncrieff, p. 75). The conduct of the Moderator in calling the meeting must be considered and approved or disapproved at the outset before the Synod proceeds to deal with the subject for which it has been summoned. The Moderator’s conduct in calling the meeting at Inverness was approved by the Synod. All these other requirements were also fulfilled in the pro re nata meeting of Synod held at Inverness. It was convened in strict accordance with the law of the Church as set down in our law book.
Reference. This is one of the ways by which a case comes up from a lower court to a higher. The Clerk of the lower court prepares and transmits to the Clerk of the higher court the papers, documents, and extracts bearing on the Reference. When a Reference comes up before a Court the Clerk reads the minute of the lower Court sending up the Reference as was done in this case. Parties are then called to the bar of the Court and state reasons why the Reference should be sustained or dismissed. The Synod having heard parties decide whether the Reference should be sustained or dismissed. The members of the Court are then permitted to ask questions of the parties in the case (Moncrieff, pp. 20, 21, 60, 61). If sustained, as it was in the present case, parties leave the bar and are heard on the merits of the case stated in the Reference. Those who have sent up the Reference are heard first and those who are opposed to the Reference are next heard and then the parties sending up the Reference are heard in reply. Members are confined to the terms of the Reference which in the present case was (1) to enquire into the attitude of Rev. Mr. Macqueen towards the Presbytery re the Dornoch case, having particular reference to the charges made against the Northern Presbytery, and (2) to review, at their discretion, any points necessarily arising out of the case. The Reference thus asked (1) for an inquiry (not trial) into Mr. Macqueen’s attitude, having particular reference to Mr. Macqueen’s charges against the Presbytery; note, not charges by the Presbytery against Mr. Macqueen; (2) and to review, at their discretion, any point necessarily arising out of the case. The Reference did not ask for a review at the discretion of any individual member for or against the Reference but at the discretion of the Synod—quite a different matter. Members of Synod were not at liberty to introduce matters with which the Reference had nothing to do and the Moderator had occasion to call three members of the Northern Presbytery to order because they were introducing matters outwith the Reference. It would have been quite unconstitutional for the Synod to allow discussion of matters that were excluded by the terms of the Reference.
Libel. Dr. Mair, an authority on ecclesiastical law, defines a Libel as “the formal indictment by which a minister or probationer is charged with misconduct or heresy” (Digest of Church Laws). While a minister is entitled to demand that a libel be served on him when a question is raised concerning his conduct Moncrieff points out that the Form of Process would restrain a Presbytery from instituting or entertaining a regular process against any minister until all means have been exhausted for preventing the necessity of such a process being entered on (Moncrieff, p. 118, sec. 7) and again he points out there are three distinct grounds which may warrant or require a Presbytery to entertain or frame a Libel and without one of which it is contrary to the Form of Process for a Presbytery to entertain a charge of scandal* against a minister so far as even to cite the Minister or in any way begin a process. The three grounds are (1) a complaint involving a charge of immorality or heresy; (2) a person undertaking to make out a Libel containing such a charge, under the pain of being censured as a slanderer if he fail to do so; (3) a fama clamosa so great that the Presbytery find it necessary to begin a process without an accuser. It will be thus seen that the serving of a libel is a very serious matter, and that section 7, p. 118 in Moncrieff is to be seriously considered before serving a libel. Besides it should not be forgotten that it is the accuser who is expected to serve the libel. The members of the Northern Presbytery in the present case are not the accusers but the accused and if this case demands the serving a libel it is they who have a right to demand that a libel be served on them.
*Scandal is used here in its ecclesiastical sense, offence.
Point of Order. In the course of a discussion any member has a right to call another to order and when this is done, the person speaking should stop until the question of order is determined (Moncrieff, p. 70). If the Moderator’s ruling is not acceptable appeal may be made to the Synod. It is unconstitutional and disrespectful to the Moderator to continue speaking as if no ruling had been given.
Private Meetings. The press has made a great deal of what they termed “secret” meetings. The correct term, of course, is “private.” All kirk-session meetings are private unless it is agreed to by the session to meet in public. All meetings of Presbyteries (except when students are being examined) and Synods are public unless they decide to meet in private, in which case a motion to that effect must be moved, seconded and carried.
Finding of Synod. Let it be noted the finding of the Synod was not a sentence passed on Mr. Macqueen but a finding. Mr. Macqueen after being appealed to several times to bring forward proofs to substantiate his charges made against the Northern Presbytery absolutely refused to do so. The Synod therefore in the absence of such proofs was hemmed in to the finding it came to. Mr. Macqueen protested against this finding on the ground that it condemned him and justified the Northern Presbytery. The Synod simply expressed its confidence in the members of the Presbytery notwithstanding the charges made against them by their accuser (Mr. Macqueen).
Procedure against the Decisions of a Supreme Court. There is no procedure against a decision of a supreme court except that of dissent with reasons. There is no room for Complaint or Appeal, etc.
The Committee would counsel our people to keep calm. Especially would they warn them against believing what appears in letters of amateur ecclesiastical lawyers printed in the press. This applies particularly to the scribes who profess to be Free Presbyterians but who lack the courage to come out into the light of day so that one might know whether any weight should be attached to their productions or not. It is not the first time that the light of day has robbed men who appeared to be mighty in the darkness of all their supposed courage and skill.