I have been reading the report of the sixty-fourth annual meeting of
the State Historical Society of Wisconsin which I received yesterday.
I was interested in the article by the pioneer missionary, especially
as much of his work was done in a part of Wisconsin where I labored
years ago. On page 184, in a note about Rev. Isaac Baird, it is said
that he was appointed to Odanah, which is correct. Such positions must
be filled by appointment. I may say that, unless my memory deceives
me, the work at Odanah was of more consequence than Father Verwyst’s
remarks would indicate. But it is said that Mr. Baird was removed to
Crystal Falls, Michigan. I think it should rather be that Mr. Baird
accepted a call to the pastorate of the church at Crystal Falls or to
be its stated supply. If the writer of the word had written “Mr. Baird
removed,” there would be no objection to the statement from a
Presbyterian standpoint. But “was removed,” that is another matter.
In a speech delivered in the British House of Commons, July 9, 1845,
Macaulay said, “All staunch Presbyterians think that the flock is
entitled, _jure divino_, to a voice in the appointment of a pastor,
and that to force a pastor on a parish to which he is unacceptable is
a sin forbidden by the Word of God as idolatry or perjury. I am quite
sure that I do not exaggerate when I say that the highest of our high
churchmen at Oxford cannot attach more importance to episcopal
government and episcopal ordination than many thousands of Scotchmen,
shrewd men, respectable men, who fear God and honor the Queen, attach
to this right of the people.” And to go to the fountain head, in “The
Buke of Discipline” by John Knox, are these words. “It apperteneth to
the Pepill and to every severall Congregation, to Elect thair
Minister.” I quote _verbatim et literatim_. There is much more to the
same effect. Excuse me for this screed, but I spent a good many years
in Wisconsin as a Presbyterian minister and was used to having this
question “speired at me” as the Scotch would say, when I returned from
a meeting of presbytery, “Have you been sent back for another year?”
When I explained to those people the Presbyterian way of doing, no one
but said, “I believe that is the best way.” Yet many Presbyterians in
Wisconsin wish to deny to the people that right. The note I refer to
was written by a man who did not know the Presbyterian way of doing or
else was one of the Presbyterians I referred to just above.[96] But
those Presbyterians did not know the history of their own church. A
great fight for democracy is on and we must fight for democracy in the
church as well as in the state if we are to make the democracy of the
state a success. See Fiske’s _Beginnings of New England_. Hence I do
not wish the Wisconsin Historical Society to help even by a note the
autocratic tendencies of some Wisconsin Presbyterians. Let us advance
in democracy by going back to the time when people chose their
bishop--you know the story of the election of Ambrose of Milan.
I remain
Yours faithfully and gratefully,
ANGUS SILLARS.
Fairmount, Ill., July 24, 1917.
[96] The editor of the Society, rather than Father Verwyst,
author of the article is responsible for the footnote
statement which Mr. Sillars calls in question. It is freely
admitted that he “did not know the Presbyterian way of
doing.”