&V--1 
 
>5S 
 
 0^ 
 
 OF Pfi/%^^, 
 
 . MAR ?-B 1943 
 
 ^Oe(i;AL;> 5iVV 
 
 v^.a" 
 
 BX 9084 -T^^ander, . 
 Srlcitut^ Secess.on 
 1843 
 
THE SCOTTISH SECESSION QF 1848:,,^ 
 
 
 BEING 
 
 AX EXAMmATIOX OF THE PRI]S^CIPLES, 
 
 AST) 
 
 NARRATIVE OF THE CONTEST, WHICH LED TO THAT 
 REMARKABLE EVENT. 
 
 BY THE y^ 
 
 REV. ALEXANDER TURNER, 
 
 MIXISTER OF PORT OF MENTEITH. 
 
 " Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur." — Virgil. 
 
 EDINBURGH: PATON AND RITCHIE. 
 
 GLASGOW: THOMAS MURRAY AND SONS. 
 
 MDCCCLIX. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 The following work was undertaken by the author at 
 the request of others, chiefly laymen and members of 
 the Church of Scotland. For a lonor time he declined 
 the duty, in the hope that it might be discharged by 
 others more competent. The urgency of his friends at 
 lenojth overcame his reluctance. Havino; consented to 
 undertake the work, he determined not to confine him- 
 self to a simple narration of the facts connected with 
 the controversy and the schism which succeeded, but 
 to test the principles evolved during the contest, and 
 on which the Secession was founded, by direct refer- 
 ence to the early history of our Church, to the recorded 
 sentiments of the venerable men through w^iose instru- 
 mentality our Reformations were effected, and by whom 
 the acknowledo-ed Standards of the Church were drawn 
 up. In carrying out this design, he has had recourse 
 not so much to the statements of the modern historian 
 as to contemporary records — to the writings of these 
 Reformers themselves, and to the Acts of the various 
 Assemblies of the Church. He has deemed it expedient 
 not merely to refer to authorities on every important 
 point, but very frequently to quote their words. 
 
 In testing the principles alleged during the late con- 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 troversy to be those of the Church of Scotland, he has 
 confined himself chiefly to the periods connected with 
 the First and Second Keformations. These are generally 
 referred to as the best periods of the Church. He has 
 endeavoured to shew what were the views then enter- 
 tained on those prominent points upon Avhich the late 
 contest was made to turn ; and that when, in either 
 case, departure was made from these safe and scriptural 
 views, a course was entered on which threatened to 
 lead to anarchy, and to the subversion both of civil and 
 religious liberty. 
 
 He is aware that especially this portion of the work 
 may to many seem burdened with very dry details. 
 That could have been avoided only by omitting those 
 proofs which seemed necessary to establish the positions 
 maintained. It misfht have been less irksome to the 
 
 o 
 
 reader, as it would have been less laborious for the 
 author, to have presented his views uninterrupted by 
 the testimony of so many witnesses, in pages not dis- 
 figured by so many references. Yet, of his witnesses 
 he has selected the testimony of only a few out of 
 many, and he has purposely confined his references 
 chiefly to works to which, without much difficulty, all 
 may have recourse.* 
 
 The plan of the work is as follows : — The distinctive 
 principles of our brethren who seceded are shewn not 
 to be in strict accordance with the acknowledged prin- 
 ciples of the Church in what they themselves have fre- 
 quently referred to as the purest periods of her history. 
 1. Of these the first is Non-intrusion ; and it is shewn 
 
 * In connexion with the earlier portion of our Church's history, the refer- 
 ences are, to a great extent, restricted to the worlis published by the Wod- 
 row Society. 
 
PKEFACE. V 
 
 that, on that point, the fathers, both of the First and 
 Second Eeformations, seem not to have generally held 
 the views adopted by the modern school. Preliminary 
 to this examination, two subjects are adverted to — (1.) 
 The principle of Toleration ; and (2.) The system of 
 Patronage in the Church of Scotland. The existence 
 of the latter in the periods referred to is considered 
 simply as a historical fact, apart altogether from the ex- 
 pediency or inexpediency of the system. 
 
 2. The second and more important principle is that 
 of Spiritual Independence ; and it is shewn that, upon 
 this point especially, the views of the fathers of both 
 Reformations differed from those held by our seceding 
 brethren. 
 
 3. In connexion, however, with the latter principle, 
 an occasional tendency was at an early period mani- 
 fested towards extreme views, similar, in many respects, 
 to those held by the modern divines, the development 
 of which is shewn to have pointed towards anarchy and 
 the subversion of true freedom. Claims, indeed, were 
 at times put forth, which can with difficulty be dis- 
 tinguished from those advanced by the Church of Rome. 
 
 Thus prepared, the reader is presented with a sum- 
 mary of the history of that contest which resulted in 
 the Secession of 1843, and in the triumph of the con- 
 stitutional principles of the Church of Scotland. That 
 secession, it is shewn, embraced a comparatively small 
 number of the clergy of the Scottish Church ; and that 
 triumph was the triumph, not of party, but of principle, 
 leaving the Church of our fathers in the full possession 
 of her valued privileges, and disencumbered from the 
 influence of extreme views on either side. 
 
 To some it may appear, that a work such as the 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 present is uncalled for — that its tendency may be to 
 stir up the embers of a controversy passing into obli- 
 vion — and that, if information be sought upon the 
 history of that stirring period, it may be found in 
 the legion of pamphlets which the conflict called into 
 existence. 
 
 It is not the wish or purpose of the author to revive 
 those feelings of bitterness which, blessed be God, are 
 now passing away. On the contrary, his object is rather 
 to accelerate their removal in the case of those sfood men 
 from whom he has the misfortune to difl^er, by shewing, 
 even though he should fail in gaining their conviction, 
 that those who hold the sentiments which he maintains 
 have what they consider solid ground for the opinions 
 which they entertain, and that therefore they may 
 venture to claim the credit of being conscientious, 
 though it may be erring, men. The fact that the bit- 
 terness of former feeling has been greatly modified, he 
 considers as an encouragement towards the publication, 
 as it leads him to cherish the ho])e that the time has 
 now arrived when men are in circumstances cahnly to 
 consider facts and arguments which, at one period, 
 would not have been listened to with patience. 
 
 If the views set forth in the following pages be cor- 
 rect, such a work is urgently required. However much 
 the unbrotherly feelings engendered by the late con- 
 troversy may have been modified, efforts have never 
 ceased to be made for the diffusion among all classes of 
 those peculiar opinions to which the Secession owed its 
 origin. These opinions the author believes to be erron- 
 eous in principle, and dangerous in their tendency. 
 
 It is true, indeed, that the whole subject was amply 
 discussed in the various pamphlets which the period of 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 the controversy called forth, and that, from these 
 sources, information may be gleaned by those who 
 have leisure and opportunity for the investigation. 
 But it is not less true that, at least to the general 
 reader, these sources are becoming difficult of access, 
 and that information on the subject is now sought for 
 almost exclusively in the works of Dre Buchanan and 
 Dr. Bryce — works which, however valuable in many 
 respects, and however ably executed, verge to extreme 
 views on either side, and occasionally indicate the fact 
 that the period of their production was anterior to the 
 time when the mists of the controversy had begun to 
 clear away. 
 
 The author is not aware that he has expressed any 
 sentiment calculated to give offence to any party with- 
 in the Church. Certainly nothing could be further 
 from his intention. In recurring to the history of the 
 past, party names could not be altogether avoided. 
 He has used them simply as terms of distinction, not, 
 in any case, as terms of reproach. And, although he 
 has attempted to explain and defend the position oc- 
 cupied by some who have, perhaps too long, submitted 
 to underlie unmerited aspersions, he rejoices in the fact 
 that now, within the Church of Scotland, party dis- 
 tinctions are almost imperceptible, and that the pre- 
 vailing effort seems to be, that we should "consider 
 one another, and provoke one another to love and to 
 good works." 
 
 Keither would he willingly offend the feelings of the 
 brethren who have gone out from us. He believes 
 them to be in error, and he has said so ; but if on any 
 point he has misrepresented their sentiments, it has 
 been because he has misapprehended them. He has 
 
VIU PKEFACE. 
 
 endeavoured to look without prejudice both at their 
 opinions and actings. Perhaps he has not succeeded. 
 But of this at least he is confident, that his prejudices, 
 however distorting, have not been so strong as to over- 
 come either his love and admiration of the characters, 
 or his appreciation of the talents and accomplishments 
 of those whose opinions he has ventured to impugn. 
 If he has sometimes expressed himself warmly, it is 
 because he holds the subject to be one of great import- 
 ance. Yet, for the opinions of those from whom he 
 differs, he desires to cherish all due respect. A master 
 in Israel has thus expressed himself in terms which 
 should rebuke outrai>;eous doo'matism on either side : 
 ^' I have been lending my attention," says Dr. M'Crie, 
 in a letter to his friend and counsellor. Dr. Bruce, " to 
 the subject of the magistrate's power, circa sacra. The 
 more I think and read upon it, I am the more con- 
 vinced of the difficulty of settling in many cases the 
 just limits of magistratical and ministerial power, and 
 am astonished at my ignorance in formerly pronouncing 
 upon the question with so much decision and indiffer- 
 ence." * 
 
 While the concluding sheets are going through the 
 press, a new agitation has begun regarding the law 
 which re2:ulates the induction of ministers. The author 
 sees no reason to qualify his statements respecting the 
 " Scotch Benefices Act." While anxious for the pro- 
 tection, and even extension, of the rights of parishes, he 
 ventures to repeat his conviction that, if fairly worked, 
 the present law is adequate to prevent the induction 
 both of unqualified and unacceptable presentees. 
 
 ♦ Life of Dr. M'Crie, p. 72. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I.— INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 18, Hue 12, /or "revised" read "revived." 
 ,, 122, ,, 3, /or "ceses" reac? "cases." 
 „ 191, „ 24, for " excite " read " erect." 
 „ 216, „ 17, delete " civil or." 
 
 Hence grievance of intrusion .... ly 
 2c? Preliminary Point — Patronage — Condemned in First Book of Dis- 
 cipline, yet admitted by fathers of First Reformation . 18, 19 
 Popular election not sanctioned by fathers of Second Reformation 20-24 
 At Revolution, election vested in heritors and elders . 25 
 Testimonies of Sir Henry and Lord Moncrieff . . 26 
 
 CHAPTER III.— PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTRUSION. 
 
 Origin of the Controversy .... 33 
 Church of Scotland formed on Genevan model . - 34 
 Andrew Melville declares minute accordance between him and Con- 
 tinental Reformers . . . . 34, 35 
 Calvin and Beza's views of " wiU and consent " . . 36, 37 
 Conformable views in Books of Discipline, &c. . . 37-40 
 Reasons required by Act 1649, according to Sir Henry Moncrieff 44 
 Reasons on part of objectors required by the Westminster divines 46, 47 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Guide to meaning of Act 1649 .... 50 
 
 State of affairs shortly after Second Reformation . . 51 
 
 Reasons required by Kevolution Settlement . . 54 
 Church, under a false idea of independence, overlooked the people's 
 
 riglits ...... 55 
 
 Should have been compelled to observe them . . 56 
 
 Gillespie's views ..... 58 
 
 Rutherford's views ..... 69 
 
 CHAPTER IV.— SPIRITUAL INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 This, not Non-intrusion, the ground of secession . . 61 
 People called on to transfer their privileges from a secure to a fluc- 
 tuating basis ..... G2 
 Small measure of Non-intrusion would have satisfied . 63 
 Church of Scotland holds, and has ever held, true doctrine of Spi- 
 ritual Independence .... 65 
 Mutual danger of invasion of separate jurisdictions . 65 
 Mutual control has resulted in our freedom . . 66 
 Church rulers may as really usurp the throne of Christ as may 
 
 civil rulers ..... 67 
 Church taught the State that its duty Avas to countenance and 
 
 establish the true Church .... 68 
 
 This the establishment of a creed and polity . . 68 
 Church therefore has limited her own independence as to doctrine 
 
 and discipline ..... 69 
 Civil power must have authority to prevent deviations from creed 
 
 and polity in Established Church ... 69 
 This is just to do what the Church has herself taken the civil power 
 
 bound to do . . . . . 70 
 
 Nature of State control .... 71 
 
 Consequences of unlimited independence ... 75 
 
 Claim should be resisted by every friend of freedom . 76 
 
 No such power exists anywhere under British Constitution . 77 
 
 Wavering creed ..... 79 
 
 CHAPTER v.— VIEWS OF THE CHURCH AT BOTH REFORMA- 
 TIONS INCONSISTENT WITH MODERN VIEWS. 
 
 Admitted that tliese views were unknown to all the Continental 
 
 Churches of the Reformation ... 82 
 Admission fatal, inasmuch as Church of Scotland was formed after 
 
 model of the others .... 84 
 
 Its founders repudiate these views ... 85 
 
 The Standards of the Church do the same . . 87 
 
 Testimony of Reformers in 1558 ... 90 
 
 Testimony of Knox. ..... 91 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 Testimony of Andrew Mehalle .... 93 
 
 Testimony of James Melville .... 94 
 
 Testimony of Davidson .... 114 
 
 Testimony of Turretine .... 115 
 
 Testimony of fathers of Second Reformation . . 96 
 
 Testimony of Alexander Henderson in Assembly 1638 . 97 
 Views of Rutherford and Gillespie opposed to those of the Movement 
 
 party ...... 99 
 
 Testimony of Gillespie .... 100 
 
 Testimony of Samuel Rutherford . . . 102 
 
 Church rulers not subjected to magistrate's discretionary power 107 
 By confounding two different things, the Seceding party identify 
 
 their claims with those for which our fathers contended . 108 
 
 Magistrate's power sol el}' judicial . . . 109 
 Can enforce only what the Church herself either prescribed or 
 
 agreed to ..... 110 
 
 This power the safeguard both of Church and people . 110 
 Views of Church now same as those held by our fathers who suiFered 
 
 in the Church's cause . . . . Ill 
 
 Testimony of " worthy, famous " John Livingston . . 112 
 
 CHAPTER VI.— EXTREME VIEWS OF SPIRITUAL INDE- 
 PENDENCE LEAD TO TYRANNY. 
 
 Part I. — Period of Reformation from Popery. 
 
 In their opposition to arbitrary civil power, our fathers sometimes for- 
 got principles of their own protest against spiritual domination 117 
 Pulpit assumed position now occupied by the public press . 118 
 Denounced without reserve, and spurned control even where sedi- 
 tion was alleged .... 119 
 Power assumed great and dangerous, and defended on plea of 
 
 spiritual independence . . . . 121 
 
 Plea subversive of civil authority . . . 124 
 
 Defence by Dr. M'Crie .... 146 
 
 Extravagant claims in Black's case . . . 125 
 
 Popish assumptions ..... 126 
 
 Tyrannical Act of Assembly 1593 . . . 128 
 
 Tendency to subject everything to Church control . . 129 
 
 Testimony of Hoome in 1609 .... 130 
 
 Part II. — Period succeeding Second Reformation. 
 
 Deep gratitude due to our Covenanting forefathers, for their 
 
 strenuous opposition to regal tyranny . . 132 
 
 Yet principles of true liberty not understood . . 133 
 From Restoration till period of Revolution, the men of the Covenant 
 
 were almost the only defenders of civU freedom . 134 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Yet acted on principles subversive of liberty . . 135 
 Assembly enjoins signing of National Covenant, under civil 
 
 penalties ..... 135 
 
 Signature of Solemn League compulsory . . . 138 
 
 Vain to deny intolerant principles of our fathers . . 139 
 
 Defence by Professor M'Crie .... 150 
 
 Assembly forbids all questioning of its authority . . 139 
 Assumes control over public press, and refuses right of private 
 
 judgment ..... 139 
 
 Forbids importing or vending of books, &c. . . 140 
 
 Tyrannical Acts ..... 140 
 
 Assumes civil and politcal power . . . 142 
 
 CHAPTER YII.— THE VETO— ITS ORIGIN, DESIGN, AND END. 
 
 Growing couA-iction that Establishment must be popularised . 157 
 Anti-Patronage movement .... 158 
 Object of leading Non-intrusionists, to save Patronage . 160 
 Testimony of Lord Moncrieff .... 161 
 Testimony of Mr. Hamilton .... 163 
 Movement begun to save Patronage led to secession of many op- 
 posed to Patronage . . . . . 166 
 Mass of Movement party desired extension of popular rights . 167 
 Innovators warned that their attempt was unconstitutional . 169 
 Yet supporters of Veto not justly charged with rashness . 170 
 Supported by high legal authority — by the legal and political 
 
 advisers of the Crown . . . . 170 
 Reasons satisfactory to many for delaying to rescind Veto . 173 
 Government, in one view, committed to the measure . 174 
 Official comnnmication indicating intention to introduce a Govern- 
 ment measure for legalising . . . 175 
 That intention not fulfilled .... 175 
 Moderate party unreasonably blamed . . . 176 
 Probable reasons why Government did not . . 177 
 
 CHAPTER VIII.— VETO NOT A TRUE NON-INTRUSION 
 MEASURE. 
 
 Men's eyes opening to its true character . . . 179 
 
 Suspicions awakened — severe trial to many . . 180 
 
 Path of duty becoming more and more distinct . . 181 
 
 Veto not a Non-intrusion measure, but the reverse . . 182 
 
 Discovery of this leads many to distrust the leaders . 184 
 Many abandon them — others, distrusting their own judgment, 
 
 adhere for a time ..... 185 
 
 Dr. Chalmers would repeal the Veto . . . 187 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XIU 
 
 Controversy assuming a new phase 
 
 Many refuse to follow one further step 
 
 When alternative became distinct, many took a decided stand 
 
 Inconsistency . . . . . 
 
 PAGE 
 
 188 
 189 
 190 
 191 
 
 CHAPTER IX.— CASES REFERRED TO CIVIL COURTS. 
 
 First Auchterarder decision .... 
 
 Alleged constitutional check in cases of refusal to induct presentees 
 Alleged decisions in favour of view 
 
 Examination of cases .... 
 Civil ruler no supremacy in causes ecclesiastical 
 Different opinions ma}'^ be formed of acts of civil courts 
 Lethendy case .... 
 
 Same may happen in non-established Church 
 
 21< 
 
 195 
 197 
 203 
 -221 
 207 
 208 
 211 
 213 
 
 CHAPTER X.— ATTEMPTS AT EXTRICATION. 
 
 Aberdeen's Bill of 1840 .... 224 
 
 Correspondence with Dr. Chalmers . . . 225 
 
 Misunderstanding between negotiators . . . 226 
 
 True ground of difference .... 230 
 
 Bill at first received with favour . . . 233 
 
 Hastily condemned by some who afterwards approve . 238 
 
 Severe remarks by Dr. Bryce .... 239 
 
 These not called for . . . . . 241 
 
 " Middle party " gradually increasing . . . 242 
 
 CHAPTER XL— FURTHER ATTEMPTS AT EXTRICATION. 
 
 Duke of Argyle's Bill ..... 245 
 
 Dissatisfaction Avith dominant majority . . . 246 
 
 Movement for repeal of Veto .... 249 
 
 Alleged that subject in dispute not understood by Government 253 
 
 Sir George Sinclair's attempt .... 254 
 
 Basis of his proposed arrangement . . . 255 
 
 Accepted by Non-intrusion Committee . . . 258 
 
 Strange condition annexed by Committee . . 259 
 
 The dawn of hope ..... 261 
 
 Hope extinguished ..... 262 
 
 Committee change their views .... 264 
 
 Many of their supporters refuse to change with them . 266 
 
 Division in Committee .... 267 
 
 Movement in Synod of Glasgow and Ayr . . 269 
 
 Embraces men of various sentiments . . . 270 
 
XIV 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PACE 
 
 Ground occupied by the movers . . . 272 
 
 Alleged that movement blasted hopes of more liberal measure 276 
 
 Charge unfounded ..... 277 
 
 Restoration of Strathbogie brethren, the " lion in the way " of Com- 
 mittee ...... 280 
 
 CHAPTER XIL— " CLAIM OF RIGHTS "—SECOND 
 AUCHTERARDER DECISION. 
 
 Secession looming ..... 286 
 
 Many, however, still confident of success . . . 287 
 
 Claim of Rights ..... 288 
 
 Elaborate, and skilfully framed .... 289 
 
 Second Auchterarder decision .... 291 
 
 After the first, Church might have fallen back on Act 1567 . 292 
 
 Judgment in second flows from the first . . . 294 
 
 One step might have saved the Church . . . 295 
 
 Import of decision misrepresented . . . 298 
 
 Ground narrowed to one point of pecuniary damages . 303 
 
 This the point on which Secession turned . . 305 
 
 CHAPTER XIII.— THE CONVOCATION. 
 
 Twofold purpose ..... 309 
 
 Many pledge themselves in hope of preventing necessity of seceding 311 
 
 Purpose as explained in circular . . . 313 
 
 Unanimity . . . . • . 315 
 
 Difterence of sentiment notwithstanding . . . 316 
 
 Strange views taken of position of Church «. . 319 
 
 Precursor of final movement .... 322 
 
 Memorial to Government .... 323 
 
 Unreasonable claims ..... 325 
 
 Address to People of Scotland .... 326 
 
 Sound views of Professor Willis . . . 328 
 
 CHAPTER XIY.— ANSWER TO CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 
 
 Government fully admit independent jurisdiction . . 332 
 
 Refuse claim as pointing at despotic power . . 333 
 
 Subject calmly and patiently debated in Parliament . 335 
 
 Claim rejected by Commons .... 336 
 
 Rejected by Lords ..... 337 
 
 Crown, Lords, and Commons unite in refusal . . 338 
 
 Chapel Act ...... 340 
 
 Its invasions ..... 342 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XV 
 
 CHAPTER XV.-PEEPARATIONS FOR IMMEDIATE 
 SECESSION. 
 
 Efforts increased 
 
 Hostility to Church 
 
 Means adopted to excite 
 
 Sustentation Fund 
 
 Importance of securing majority in Assembly 
 
 Seceders fail in securing majority 
 
 Seceders Avithdrew before Assembly constituted 
 
 Could not risk a vote 
 
 Simply a secession 
 
 Seceders claimed a majority 
 
 Question never tried . 
 
 Satisfactory test applied, from which it appears that seceders 
 
 a minority in almost every court of the Church 
 Startling residts of analysis of Roll of Clergy in 1843 
 
 PAGE 
 
 344 
 
 345 
 346 
 348 
 349 
 350 
 354 
 355 
 356 
 357 
 358 
 
 e in 
 
 358 
 
 359, 360 
 
 CHAPTER XVL— SCOTCH BENEFICES ACT. 
 
 Aspect of General Assembly after Secession . . 365 
 
 Constitution of Assembly 1843 necessarily peculiar . 366 
 
 Not in all respects fair representation of sentiments of Church 367 
 
 Subsequent Assemblies .... 368 
 
 Some deprecate all legislative interference . . 371 
 
 Assembly hails prospect of . . . . 373 
 
 Necessity of some such measure . . . 375 
 
 Bill of Middle Party ..... 378 
 
 Measure passed ..... 380 
 
 Measnre in conformity with Revolution Settlement . 381 
 Picture of Voluntaryism by author of " Natural History of Enthu- 
 siasm" ...... 388 
 
 May we hope for reunion ? . . . . 390 
 
 Conclusion ...... 392 
 
THE SCOTTISH SECESSION OF 1843. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introductory — Excitement of Controversy having passed, Prejudices 
 have begun to yield — Much to admire in Seceding Party — Much also to 
 blame — Contest at first for Popular Rights, but lapsed into Contest for 
 Clerical — Some refuse to connect themselves with the Controversy in its 
 new phase. 
 
 A PEEIOD of more than fifteen years has now elapsed 
 since the occurrence of that lamentable Secession from 
 our National Church, the grounds and principles of 
 which it is the object of the following pages to examine. 
 During that period, not a few of the leading men on 
 both sides have been gathered to their fathers — many 
 of them men of God — who, though here disunited in 
 their earnest contendings for what they each believed 
 to be the faith which was once delivered unto the 
 saints, are now, we doubt not, together before the 
 throne, members of the one great family who have 
 washed their robes and made them white in the blood 
 of the Lamb. Much of that bitterness of spirit which, 
 during the controversy that preceded and accompanied 
 
2 EXCITEMENT OF CONTROVEKSY NOW PAST. 
 
 the schism, was too frequently — though, perhaps, inevi- 
 tably — manifested, has now passed away. Men can 
 now, with some degree of composure, review the ex- 
 citing scenes of which, fifteen years ago, they were 
 spectators, or in which, perhaps, they bore some part. 
 Prejudices have begun to subside. Objects which a 
 fevered imagination had magnified and distorted into 
 gigantic monstrosities, have shrunk into proportions so 
 insignificant as to be scarcely perceptible to common 
 observers, without the aid of those subtle controver- 
 sialists whose business is to search out microscopic 
 flaws, and, by the exhibition of them, to prevent their 
 followers from perceiving that they had been chased 
 over a precipice by a host of vaporous shadows. The 
 experience of fifteen years has convinced multitudes 
 who had been induced or compelled to take the fatal 
 leap, that the banner of true liberty floats at least as 
 securely on the ancient battlements which they have 
 abandoned, as on those within which they have now 
 entrenched themselves. Friendships which the con- 
 troversy had broken up are now renewed, and — except 
 in cases in which self-interest demands the fomenting 
 of discord, or in which spiritual pride and intractable 
 bigotry have blinded the mind, or in which the game 
 of worldly politicians requires the stirring up of the 
 smouldering embers — honourable men on either side are 
 beginning to perceive that principle is not exclusively 
 their own — that there is room for mutual regard and the 
 exercise of brotherly affection — that, in some respects, 
 each had mistaken the other's views, and underestimated 
 
MUCH TO ADMIRE IN SECEDERS, 3 
 
 or misunderstood the other's motives — and that, after all, 
 the points of difference between them are, when stripped 
 of adventitious circumstances, not so essential as the 
 representations of irritated polemics had led them to 
 suppose. 
 
 To the people of Scotland, in general^ there has not, 
 in our times, been a day more memorable than the 
 18th of May 1843. On that day the great modern 
 schism was perpetrated. Some hundreds of ministers 
 voluntarily abandoned the Church of their fathers, 
 boldly sacrificing their status and emoluments as minis- 
 ters of the Church of Scotland by law established, at 
 the shrine either of high principle or of their ow^n con- 
 sistency. The deed was heroical. The shock was 
 felt throughout the empire. It took many by surprise. 
 Calculating politicians who, though loudly warned, yet 
 treated as of trivial importance the one essential ele- 
 ment in the case, w^ere astonished at the spectacle, 
 whether they ascribed it to magnanimity or infatuation. 
 We revert to it with mingled feelings. Not willingly 
 would we depreciate the moral grandeur of an event so 
 imposing as to have excited the admiration of thou- 
 sands throughout the Christian world, and secured 
 the sympathy and co-operation of multitudes, who de- 
 manded no hioher aro^ument in favour of the cause, 
 than the spectacle of so many men of lofty Christian 
 principle, and of every grade of intellect, united, at 
 every hazard, to support it. The fortitude of these 
 men we cordially applaud ; the Christian worth of 
 many of them we highly appreciate. To the genius of 
 
4 GROUNDS AND OBJECTS OF CONTROVERSY CHANGED. 
 
 some of them we pay most willing homage. Their 
 talents and attainments we more than admire; their 
 irraces and virtues we desire to imitate. With not a 
 few we were wont to take sweet counsel, and we love 
 them still. Difference of opinion has not estranged us. 
 Over some that have departed we have wept as over 
 brethren and fathers beloved and venerated, and their 
 memories we shall ever cherish as among the plea- 
 sant things of days that can no more return. 
 
 But while we pay this tribute in all sincerity of heart, 
 we would belie our own convictions did we not as 
 strenuously declare our sincere belief that our friends 
 and brethren are grievously in error — that they are 
 solemnly chargeable with the sin of schism — that they 
 maintained principles subversive of the constitution of 
 the Church, and which, had they been established, 
 would have been at once detrimental to Avhat they 
 themselves designate the Crown-rights of our grloious 
 Kedeemer, and ruinous to the interests both of civil 
 and reli2:ious freedom in the land. 
 
 These, indeed, are grave charges; but we believe 
 them to be not more grave than true. We are far, 
 indeed, from supposing that such results were designed 
 or anticipated. The controversy originated in defence 
 of popular rights ; but, as the warfare advanced, and 
 the passions were called into play, abstract principles 
 were propounded, and became the very substance and 
 marrow of the controversy, which, if established, both 
 reason and the sure light of past experience declare 
 might, in other hands, have eifected these results. The 
 
SOME REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CHANGE. 
 
 conflict began in defence of a popular veto on the in- 
 duction of ministers to the sacred charge ; but ere long 
 its character so entirely changed that it became a con- 
 test for a principle which, if conceded, would have 
 established a clerical or ecclesiastical veto on whatever 
 subject the Church might choose to appropriate as her 
 own. It began by demanding a popular right, but it 
 ended by demanding a clerical right, which, at will, 
 could have scattered the popular to the wunds. Nor is 
 it to be wondered at, surely, that not a few, who were 
 anxious to aid in defendinor the constitutional rights of 
 the people, should, even in the face of obloquy and 
 scorn, have repudiated the contest in its altered phase, 
 and refused their countenance to a movement which, 
 begun in defence of freedom, had been transformed 
 into what they believed to be a contest for eventual 
 tyranny. 
 
 The conduct of these men has been the subject of 
 severe animadversion. While, wuth their brethren, 
 they have shared the common condemnation of those 
 accused of betraying the liberties of that Church whose 
 interests they had sworn to defend, for them has been 
 reserved a double share of infamy, and the finger of 
 scorn has been pointed at them, as men who had 
 sacrificed both honour and principle. That among 
 them some were to be found, the defence of whose con- 
 sistency might prove a difficult task, it were as idle to 
 deny, as that, in the ranks of the Secession, many were 
 found ultimately to range themselves, who, up till the 
 very moment of the schism, nay, and till a later 
 
b CONSISTENCY. 
 
 period, repudiated the grounds which their leaders 
 had occupied, and declared that, as far as their own 
 judgments were concerned, they could with clear con- 
 sciences remain in the Church by law established ; 
 but whose moral courage proved too feeble to resist 
 the arts of cajolery, and the influence of great names, 
 and the fear of ridicule, and the threats of exposure, 
 and the dread of seeming inconsistency, and the horror 
 of unpopularity, and the hope, fondly cherished and by 
 others eagerly fanned, that the exhibition of a bold 
 front and of unflinching determination would vanquish 
 opposition from whatever quarter, and secure safety by 
 ensuring success. 
 
 Inconsistency on either side we wish not to extenu- 
 ate, although we infinitely prefer the inconsistency of 
 him who changes from error to truth, to the consistency 
 of him who, having committed himself to error, perti- 
 naciously adheres to it. But of the vast majority of 
 those who for a time lent their aid to the movement- 
 party in the Church, yet ultimately refused to be 
 dragged at the chariot-wheels of those leaders whose 
 contendings resulted in what, to appearance at least, 
 partook less of a self-sacrifice than an ovation, we 
 believe, that not only were they actuated by high, and 
 lionourable, and Christian principle, but that their 
 consistency can be vindicated as fully as that of any 
 who shared in the controversy — a controversy of ten 
 years' duration, and which, candid men of every shade 
 of opinion will admit, did educe views and conse- 
 quences of which, at the commencement, they had no 
 
PARTY CONNEXION ABANDONED FOR PRINCIPLE. 7 
 
 suspicion. For what purpose is any controversy main- 
 tained, but that the views of the controversialists may 
 be received by men hitherto ignorant of or opposed to 
 them ? And why, therefore, at any or at every stage of 
 the controversy, may not inquiring men, receiving an 
 increase of light, advance to positions newly discovered, 
 or recede from those evinced to be untenable ? At the 
 commencement of the Church-controversy, a lamentable 
 ignorance prevailed — perhaps, yet prevails — of the true 
 history and constitution of the Church of Scotland. 
 The popular leaders could, almost without risk of con- 
 tradiction, deal loosely with the annals of the past. 
 The outline only, and that often but ill defined, was 
 generally known, — the filling up was very much the 
 work of fancy. But when men were led to examine 
 for themselves, and began to see that the constitution 
 of the Church was something more than could be 
 gathered from a few disjointed quotations from our 
 Books of Policy, or fragments of Acts of Parliament, 
 and that her history was something more than a selec- 
 tion of romantic tales, strung skilfully together to 
 illustrate favourite principles, were they to be greatly 
 blamed if they claimed the freedom of judging for 
 themselves, as to how far they should proceed in com- 
 pany with those whose views their more careful exami- 
 nation refused to verify ? Above all, if the ground of 
 controversy had been changed, and new positions 
 occupied, were they bound to follow t * Because they 
 
 * The following remarks, by the late honoured biographer of Knox, are 
 worthy of careful consideration. They occur in a speech delivered at a 
 
5 PARTY CONNEXION ABANDONED FOR PRINCIPLE. 
 
 had joined with others when they lent their efforts to 
 secure the people's constitutional rights, were they also 
 bound to follow them when they advanced to ground 
 which they believed could not be held, without virtually 
 destroying these rights, and establishing, not spiritual 
 independence, but spiritual despotism, and making the 
 rulers of the Church lords over God's heritage ; and, 
 instead of upholding the doctrine of Christ's Headship, 
 subjugating to their own unchallengeable dominion 
 whatever they might fancy to be within the sphere of 
 things ecclesiastical or spiritual ? On the contrary, at 
 whatever stage the conviction flashed upon them, it 
 became them, as honourable men and as Christians, 
 fearlessly to act upon it ; and though the tardiness of 
 some who lingered till the last with those in wdiose 
 judgment and prudence they had confided, did give 
 occasion for surmisings, w^e honour the moral courage 
 of those who, by magnanimously braving the obloquy 
 which they knew awaited them — the cutting sarcasm of 
 
 meeting in Edinburgh, May 11, 1832, called to oppose the national system 
 of education in Ireland : " We live in times that try men's souls. The 
 question now is, Principle or Expediency — the pleasing of God, or the 
 pleasing of men ? and the demands of the latter are no less high and un- 
 bounded than those of the former. The cry is. Everything or nothing ! It 
 matters not that you go with us nine hundred and ninety-nine paces, provided 
 you take not with us the thousandth. It is true you have supported us in all 
 our measures; but, if you dissent from us in this one, we will hold you as our 
 declared foe, put you under our ban, and, throwing over you the wolf's skin, 
 will hunt you down as an ultra-tory, a placeman, a pensioner, a bigot, and, in 
 one word, a hypocrite. These are generally 7'uses de guerre, but they are bad, 
 as well as poor policy, because they are soon discovered, and because they 
 kindle the indignation of men of honest and independent minds, who have 
 an instinctive and irrepressible abhorrence of everything that wears the 
 semblance of intolerance, especially when it proceeds from the part}' to 
 which they are otherwise attached." — Life of Dr. M^Crie, by his Son, p. 474. 
 
SACRIFICES NOT ALL ON ONE SIDE. 9 
 
 men who knew so well to point the darts of irony, the 
 pity, real or affected, of former friends — made to principle 
 a sacrifice of feeling, to our mind nobler far than that 
 of those who, amidst the plaudits of a gay assemblage, 
 hailing them as martyrs in a glorious cause, made each 
 his separate demission, and, receiving the acclamations 
 of enthusiastic spectators as one who had nobly forced 
 his way from Egypt, added his name to that roll of 
 worthies which was to be preserved for the admiration 
 of unborn generations. On the one side there was the 
 sacrifice of what honourable men have always valued 
 as more precious than gold that perisheth. On the 
 other there was, in the case of some, a sacrifice real 
 and felt, but at the same time met by an equivalent, or 
 at least a substitute, in the shape of a magnificent 
 common fund, out of which the wants of all w^ere to be 
 equally supplied ; while, in the case of others, there 
 was the prospect of more than an equivalent — a golden 
 boon, and with it the lustre of the martyr's crown. 
 Add to this the conviction entertained by many, that 
 even yet the triumph of the party was but a few years 
 delayed — that the temporary structures about to be 
 erected for the outgoing congregations W'Ould more 
 than outlive their brief secession, to be folloAved by a 
 triumphant restoration, and it will be seen that the esti- 
 mated sacrifice was not all on one side, perhaps not chiefly 
 on the side of those to whom the glory has been ascribed. 
 In the next chapter we propose to examine that 
 principle in the Church's constitution, which gave 
 orio-in to the conflict resultino; in the Secession of 1843. 
 
CHAPTEK 11. 
 
 Principle of Non-intrusion— Still maintained, as of old, by the Church of 
 Scotland— Preliminary Points— Toleration— Repudiated by our fatliors— 
 Patronage— In one or other form in use in this Church from earliest 
 times — Views of the Fathers of First and Second Reformations. 
 
 The two principles which formed the chief subjects of 
 the controversy which terminated in the lamentable 
 Secession of 1843, were those of Non-intrusion and 
 Spiritual Independence. With the former the conflict 
 originated, merging at length into the latter. It was 
 on the ground of the latter, almost exclusively, as we 
 shall afterwards see, that the secession was effected, 
 the former then occupying a position of only secondary 
 importance. Still, non-intrusion was the primary ground 
 of contest. Non-intrusion was the war-cry which 
 aroused the combatants — the inscription emblazoned 
 on the banner around which the hosts were marshalled. 
 The repetition of that formidable word with which 
 the ears of the nation were so long assailed, can scarcely 
 fail to be distasteful, as the mention of a nauseous drug 
 would be to the convalescent patient who had been 
 sickened, almost to poisoning, by repeated exhibitions. 
 The topic, however, we must recall, how briefly soever 
 we may advert to it, our object being to inquire in what 
 sense the principle really is and has been recognised by 
 the Church of Scotland, and to shew that, at this 
 
NON-INTRUSION MAINTAINED BY THE CHURCH. 1 1 
 
 present hour, she holds and acts upon that principle 
 entire, as declared by the early fathers of our Church, 
 recognised by the State, and embodied in the constitu- 
 tion of the Church of Scotland. We declare our firm 
 adherence to the principle. We protest that we abide 
 by it more firmly, and value it more dearly, than did 
 many of those who proclaimed it as their watchword, 
 and emblazoned it on that standard around which they 
 gathered, when marshalling their hosts to evacuate the 
 citadel, and to point their assaults against the towers and 
 bulwarks of that Zion, which, by the blessing of our 
 Church's Head, the hands of their fathers and ours 
 had built up. We assert that on this point the victory 
 was gained — that the rights of the Christian people, for 
 a time forgotten or neglected, have been secured — that 
 the doubts which in certain quarters were cast upon the 
 principle have been authoritatively removed — that, at 
 this present hour, the members of the Church of Scot- 
 land possess, and exercise undiminished, the full rights 
 which were ever enjoyed by them at any period of her 
 history ; and, consequently, that a cruel delusion has 
 somehow been practised on those ministers and people 
 who have seceded from the Church of Scotland, on the 
 ground of the non-intrusion principle. 
 
 We, of course, do not assert that the congregations 
 of our Church are at liberty to exercise their right in 
 that form which was embodied in the celebrated Veto 
 law ; but we do maintain that they possess what, to all 
 practical purposes, is at least of equal value— that they 
 enjoy undiminished the same substantial rights that ever 
 
12 TOLERATION REPUDIATED OF OLD. 
 
 were recognised as their constitutional privileges, at 
 any period in the previous history of our Church, not 
 excepting even those referred to as her " golden 
 periods," immediately succeeding what has been desig- 
 nated the Second Reformation. We assert that, as far 
 as this great principle is concerned, there were no 
 grounds for the schism of 1843, which did not exist 
 at any previous period of our history ; and that, there- 
 fore, if any did, on the non-intrusion principle, conscien- 
 tiously secede, either they had changed their views, or 
 they had entered the Church in ignorance of what her 
 principles really were, and in ignorance, moreover, of the 
 principles of every other Presbyterian church-estab- 
 lishment. 
 
 Before exhibiting the authorities on which these 
 assertions are founded, there are two preliminary points 
 to which, though not essential, it may nevertheless be 
 of importance to attend, as bearing intimately on the 
 subject with which we are engaged. 
 
 1. The former of these is one on which, in conduct- 
 ing the late controversy, we think far too little stress 
 was laid. Down to the period of the Revolution, 
 toleration in matters of religion was not recognised in 
 this kingdom. While Popery was the religion estab- 
 lished in the land, dissent was a capital crime. When 
 Protestantism gained the ascendency, dissent was still 
 regarded as an atrocious offence. The dominant party, 
 whether Popish, Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, held it 
 sinful to tolerate dissent ; and successively, as they 
 obtained the power, persecuted each the other without 
 
COMPULSORY WORSHIP. 13 
 
 remorse. With this spirit our Presbyterian fathers 
 were deeply imbued. It was the spirit of the times. 
 Toleration was not only not sanctioned by them — the 
 very name was an abomination in their ears. One 
 form in which this great and prevailing evil manifested 
 itself, was in the shape of compulsory enactments, to the 
 effect that all parishioners should attend and receive 
 ordinances in their own parish church. In such enact- 
 ments as these our good old Presbyterian fathers 
 gloried. General Assemblies were never weary of 
 repeating them, and enjoining Presbyteries, on their 
 utmost peril, to see the mandates enforced — alas ! not 
 dreaming the while that they were furnishing prece- 
 dents of which, in the sad experience of their persecuted 
 descendants, tyranny was not slow to avail itself, during 
 that dark period of our nation's history when the land 
 was made drunk with the blood of her brave and 
 martyred sons. 
 
 To persons at all acquainted with the history of the 
 Church, it is not necessary to adduce proofs of the 
 statements now made. They might be multiplied to 
 any extent. Let one or two suffice for the purpose 
 now in view. 
 
 The Assembly 1600, e.g., ordains as follows: — "Each 
 minister is to take diligent heed that every one of his 
 people communicate once a-year (who are not debarred), 
 the recusants to be delated to His Majesty, that the act 
 against non-communicants may be executed against 
 them. And if a parish want a minister, the Presbytery 
 shall take order with the congregation ; and the person 
 
14 COMPULSORY ACTS OF ASSEMBLY. 
 
 charged to communicate shall have three months advise- 
 ment, after which the act to be execute against him." 
 
 Again, Assembly 1601 — '' That the names of all non- 
 communicants through the whole land be taken up in a 
 roll, subscribed by the minister respective of each parish 
 where they are, and the moderator of the presbytery, 
 and so sent to the king's ministers, that order may be 
 taken with such enemies to religion." 
 
 Once more, let us cite an instance from what is some- 
 times designated the best period of the Church. We 
 find the Assembly 1647 enacting as follows: — "The 
 Assembly, in the zeal of God, for preserving order, 
 unitie, and peace in the kirk, cfec, .... ordains 
 every member in every congregation to keep their own 
 parish kirk, to communicate there in word and sacra- 
 ments Likeas, the minister of that con- 
 gregation from which they do withdraw, shall labour 
 first by private admonition to reclaim them ; and if 
 any, after private admonition by their own pastor, do 
 not amend, in that case the pastor shall delate the fore- 
 said persons to the session, who shall cite and censure 
 them as contemners of the comely order of the kirk," 
 &c., &c. 
 
 Such was the state of matters in former times. The 
 people were compelled to recognise the minister inducted 
 into their parish as their minister and spiritual guide. 
 They were bound by civil penalties, as well as ecclesi- 
 astical censure, to attend his ministrations, and his 
 alone. Some weak and humble believer, suffering 
 from the assaults of his spiritual foe, and fearing to be 
 
WHAT INTRUSION IMPLIED OF OLD. 15 
 
 " guilty of the body and blood " of his blessed Redeemer, 
 might, in a season of depression, shrink from approach- 
 ing the Holy Table. He durst not. The act was 
 explicit and imperative. The Church would " delate 
 him to His Majesty, that the act against non-communi- 
 cants might be execute against him." An earnest 
 Christian, feeling or fancying that he was not advancing 
 in the spiritual life under his pastor's teaching, might 
 desire to enjoy the public services of the clergyman of a 
 neighbouring parish. He durst not. He might plead 
 that he could not be edified in his own church. It was 
 to no purpose. The act enjoined "every member in 
 every congregation to keep their own parish kirk." 
 
 This, then, was the state of matters in Scotland in 
 bygone times. Dissent was not tolerated. Absence 
 from ordinances was not permitted. Everyparishioner, 
 without exception, was hound to recognise the inducted 
 minister as his pastor — his only spiritual guide. And 
 in these circumstances, contrasted with the privileges 
 now enjoyed by every parish in the kingdom, it was 
 but a paltry boon that was conferred when it was 
 enacted, that '^ no minister should be intruded contrary 
 to the will of the congregation." If, in any case, the 
 consent of the congregation was w^ithheld, and yet the 
 minister was inducted, then, indeed, intrusion was per- 
 petrated. Nay, if even a trifling minority refused 
 consent, it was a case of clear intrusion, for that 
 minority were compelled, both by civil penalties and 
 Church censures, to attend that pastor's ministrations, 
 and receive ordinances at his hand. Plere was intrusion 
 
16 NON-IXTRUSION IMPLIES PATRONAGE. 
 
 in the true sense of the term. No wonder if our fathers 
 strenuously opposed it. That they did so, and to what 
 extent, we shall afterwards see ; meanwhile, let this be 
 carefully observed, that in our altered and mere highly 
 favoured times, that intrusion against which our fathers 
 protested is simply a thing impossible.* 
 
 2. The second preliminary point to which we advert 
 is connected with the law of patronage. On the expe- 
 diency or inexpediency of this institution it is not 
 necessary that we offer any remark. We, however, 
 beg attention to the fact, that the principle of non- 
 intrusion, as explained during the late controversy, and 
 maintained by those who seceded from the Church, 
 necessarily implies the existence of patronage. Non- 
 intrusion, as thus explained, is designed to modify the 
 hardships, and lessen the evils of patronage. And if, 
 therefore, " it is, and always has been a fundamental 
 principle of this Church, that no minister be intruded 
 into a parish contrary to the will of the congregation," 
 the statement amounts to a declaration that patronage 
 is and always has been in use in the Church of Scot- 
 land. If this be not so, the assertion of the fundamen- 
 tal principle amounts simply to a ruse. Non-intrusion 
 is antagonistic to patronage ; and the existence of the 
 one necessarily pre-supposes the existence of the other. 
 Intrusion, in the controversial sense, could take place 
 only under a system of patronage ; and therefore, to 
 assert the opposite principle could have no meaning, 
 except in so far as patronage was an acknowledged 
 
 * See Note A. 
 
PATRONAGE REMONSTRATED AGAINST. 17 
 
 thing. The assertion of the principle acknowledged 
 the existence (" is and has ever been") of that which 
 it was designed to modify and counteract. This is no 
 mere logical quibble, but the statement of a fact ; and 
 when anti-patronage men harangued the people on 
 their deprivation of rights wdiich they asserted the 
 constitution of the Church provided for them, they 
 contradicted their own assertion by rallying around the 
 banner of non-intrusion, for the emblem emblazoned on 
 that banner just amounted to this, " Patronage is and 
 ever has been in use in this Church." Now, it really 
 is the case that, though in different forms and modifica- 
 tions at different periods, patronage has been ever in 
 use in the Church of Scotland. That on many occa- 
 sions it w^as remonstrated against as a great grievance, is 
 known to all : but there are some grounds for surmising 
 that sometimes these remonstrances originated, not in 
 any w4sh to confer the election on the people — that the 
 complaint was made, not as of a popular, but a clerical 
 grievance ; nay, for the truth should not be concealed, 
 good evidence is not awanting that the galling fetters 
 were felt, not so much as restraining the liberty of the 
 people, as the ambition of the clergy — that the spirit 
 which dictated the remonstrance was less a desire of 
 popular rights than of clerical power. We shall after- 
 wards vindicate this assertion by competent evidence — 
 an assertion which we make, not with reference to the 
 period of dominant " Moderatism," but even to ^the 
 " golden period" which succeeded the Second Reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 B 
 
18 BOOKS OF DISCIPLINE. 
 
 The First Book of Discipline, framed when the 
 government of the Church was confessedly semi-episco- 
 pal, does clearly defend the right of election in the 
 people. " It appertaineth to the people and to every 
 several congreiration to elect their minister." This 
 Book of Policy was hastily drawn up, and presented to 
 the nobility in 1560.* It never received the sanction of 
 the Estates, and was superseded in 1578 by the Second 
 Book of Discipline, according to which the Church 
 government was established in 1592. This Second 
 Book of Discipline, which so soon took place of the First 
 — which was revised and ratified by the famous Assembly 
 of 1638, from which the period of the Second Reformation 
 dates its origin — adopts a different doctrine : '^ Elec- 
 tion is the choosing out of a person or persons maist 
 able to the office that vaikes, by the judgment of the 
 eldership (Presbytery) and consent of the congregation." 
 
 While thus the trumpet was giving forth a somewhat 
 uncertain sound, patronage continued to be exercised. 
 In 1592 the Presbyterian form of Church government 
 was formally established, the same Act which established 
 the Church providing that " Presbyteries be bound and 
 astricted to receive and admit whatsoniever qualified 
 minister presented by His Majesty or other laic patrons." 
 Under this Act, which was hailed with gratitude by 
 such men as Melville and other worthies of the period, 
 as securing, beyond expectation, the " liberties of the 
 true kirk,"t patronage was recognised in the most 
 
 • See Note B. 
 
 f See Autobiography of James Melville, pp. 291-93. 
 
CLERICAL PATRONAGE. 11) 
 
 ample and binding manner ; and yet, although we find 
 occasional remonstrances a2:ainst the abuse of the 
 system, we find but few indications of the system itself 
 being regarded as an intolerable grievance; pressing on 
 the Christian people. We do, however, discover oc- 
 casional symptons of the tendency above referred to, 
 towards a desire on the part of the clergy to secure the 
 right of patronage to their own order. For example, 
 in 1596 certain questions were proposed by His Majesty 
 to be resolved by the Estates and General Assembly. 
 Some jealousy being entertained as to His Majesty's 
 motives and design, " a meeting of brethren appointed 
 out of every Presbytery (in the Synod of Fife) con- 
 vened at St. Andrews," to consider these questions 
 and to prepare replies. The third question is as fol- 
 lows, " Is not the consent of the most part of the flock, 
 and also of the patron, necessary in the election of the 
 pastors ? " Answe7\ — " The election of pastors should 
 be made by them who are pastors and doctors lawfully 
 called ; . . . and to such as are chosen, the flock 
 and patron should give their consent and protection.'** 
 
 * MelviUe's Diary, pp. 390, 391. Caldenvood's Hist., vol. v.,p. 586. 
 Calderwood adds that not only the Synod of Fife, but also particular 
 brethren, "being careful to maintain the discipline established whereof the 
 Kirk of Scotland had found so great fruit, set hand to pen, and made 
 answers to the foresaid questions." He preserves the answers of two to this 
 query. One boldly asserts that patronage, being only a human institution, 
 has no divine warrant, and therefore imports no necessity of consent ; while 
 the necessity of the consent of the people, he adds, no one will deny. The 
 other, Mr. Patrick Galloway, " who would seem somewhat in these days," 
 gives the following very explicit answer, like one who knew he was giving 
 forth no distasteful doctrine : " The approbation of pastors pertains to the 
 flock, and presentation to the Presbyten,-." — P. 597. 
 
 According to the testimony of the Rev. William Sorley, the respected 
 
20 CHURCH IN POWER. 
 
 It is not necessary to prosecute this search through 
 a period during which no one ventures to deny the ex- 
 istence of the system. "We may pass on to 1638, when, 
 after a lengthened season of sufferings and depression, 
 during many years of which Episcopacy had been the 
 form of Church government established in the kingdom, 
 the Presbyterian cause again appeared triumphant, 
 and the Church shook off the fetters with which she 
 had been bound. During the period that succeeded, 
 she was not only free, but dominant — she was not 
 established only, she ruled. She issued her mandates, 
 and they were obeyed with trembling. Her assemblies 
 and their commissions were armed with powers which 
 royalty itself might envy, and to which, on many oc- 
 casions, royalty succumbed. Had she wielded her 
 power with greater moderation, it might perhaps have 
 
 Free Church minister in Selkirk, a system of patronage bearing a striking 
 resemblance to that indicated in the text speedily manifested itself in the 
 denomination to -which he belongs. In his pamphlet entitled " Prospects 
 and Perils of the Free Church," published in 1845, occur the folloAving 
 striking and instructive statements : — " Look next at the Home Mission 
 Committee, and, constituted as it is, we say that it forms, in the hands of 
 a few individuals, an instrument of power with which they can neither 
 wisely nor safely be intrusted. What is the authority with which they are 
 invested.' Nothinr/ less than that of exercising the entire patronage of the 
 Free Church of Scotland. They are, at this moment, accustomed to appoint 
 supplies to all our vacant charges, and even our Presbyteries are dependent 
 upon their sovereign will and pleasure, for any provision they may have it 
 in their power to make to the people, who look to them for the dispensation 
 of Avord and ordinances. Of such a form of patronage, the most odious, be- 
 cause an ecclesiastical one, which a system so ugly at the best, can ever 
 assume, we complain, we loudly, we bitterly complain. It deprives our 
 people of those sacred privileges, in the appointment of their ministers, which 
 the rulers of the Free Church are, of all men, bound most scrupulously to 
 
 beware of invading. It is utterly degrading to our Presbyteries 
 
 It is ruinous to our young men," &c. — Pp. 21, 22. 
 
CHURCH IX POWER. 21 
 
 been more permanent. Had she, as the nation's re- 
 cognised guide, been less ambitious of foreign conquest, 
 and less resolute to force her Leao;ue and Covenant on 
 those who were determined to refuse it, she might per- 
 haps have been more fortunate. Had she been less 
 tyrannical, she might perhaps have shared a richer bless- 
 ing from the Father of Mercies. Had she cherished 
 more the spirit of heavenly unity and brotherly love 
 among her sons, instead of that unseemly discord and 
 wrath, and mutual estrangements which so soon de- 
 veloped themselves, she might perhaps have aided in 
 defending Scotland from the dishonour of subjugation 
 by a victorious enemy, and of doing homage to an alien 
 usurper. 
 
 But let us see how she acted by the system in ques- 
 tion, when the power was in her hand. 
 
 The famous Glasgow Assembly of 1638 makes no 
 allusion to the subject, further than by renewing the 
 Act of Assembly 1595, to the effect that "none seek 
 presentations to benefices without advice of the Presby- 
 tery within the bounds whereof the benefice is." In- 
 deed, a careful examination of the acts of this and 
 several subsequent Assemblies clearly indicates the fact 
 that, at this period, the Church gave little heed to the 
 subject, and was scarcely conscious of it as an evil ; for, 
 though repeatedly invited to state her grievances, and 
 by no means backward to do so, patronage has no place 
 in her enumeration of them. The fact is a striking 
 one. 
 
 In the Assembly 1642, we find the subject intro- 
 
22 PATRONAGE AT SECOND EEFORMATION. 
 
 (luced, but not in such a way as indicates much anxiety 
 for popular rights. The king had, on their petition, 
 consented to issue the Crown presentations in the fol- 
 lowing manner. A leet of six was to be named by the 
 Presbytery within whose bounds a vacancy should oc- 
 cur, and from that list His Majesty was to select the 
 presentee. Acting on this concession, the Assembly 
 instructed all Presbyteries, in the first instance, to 
 transmit their leets through the Synods to the Assembly, 
 in order that its sanction might be given to the selec- 
 tion.* The Assembly of the following year proceeded a 
 step in advance, and, on the ground of the difficulty of 
 obtaining " six able and w^ell-qualified persons to be put 
 into a list to His Majesty, present their humble desires 
 that he w^ould be pleased to accept of a list of three." 
 
 * Vide Act anent the Order for making Lists to His IMajestie and other 
 Patrons for Presentations, Act. Sess. vii., 1642. There is a recognition of 
 popular rights in this Act in the folk)wing clause — "AVhich roll made by the 
 General Assembly shall be sent to every Presbytery, and that the Presby- 
 tery, -with consent of the most or best part of the congregation, shall make a 
 list of six persons," &c. The clerical influence, however, is made clearly to 
 predominate. Presbyteries have the first selection, then Synods, then the 
 Assembh', and last of all the Presbytery, with consent of the most or best 
 part of the congregation. The ambiguity in this expression, " most or best 
 part," is somewhat suspicious. Perhaps the following answer to the 11th 
 question, in the series already alluded to, as proposed by the king in 1596, 
 may help us to res(tlve the doubt. " Question. — Ma)' a simple pastor exer- 
 cise any jurisdiction without consent of the most part of his particular ses- 
 sion? Answer. — He may, with consent of the best part, which commonly 
 is not the most ; for he, being the messenger of God and interpreter of His 
 word, has more authority with a few than a great multitude in the con- 
 trary." — .James Melville's Diary^ p. 398. 
 
 Baillie, in a letter to Spang, detailing the proceedings of this Assembly, 
 says, "Argyle made a fair offer for himself and all the noblemen present, 
 that they would give free liberty to Presbyteries and people to name whom 
 they would to vacant places, upon condition the Assembly would oblige 
 entrants to rest content with modified stipends." The offer was not ac- 
 cepted. 
 
ABOLITION OF PATRONAGE. 23 
 
 One step more would have been a " humble desire " to 
 allow them to exercise the right of issuing the Crown 
 presentations. 
 
 Thus matters continued till the memorable year 
 1649. Patronage continued to be exercised, and that 
 too, it would appear, in many instances, without much 
 respect to the popular will. The incidental testimony 
 of Baillie to this effect is given in no ambiguous terms, 
 and indicates that the zeal of the clergy in this matter 
 was not so ardent as to require no aid from the " pres- 
 sure from without." In his Journal of the Assembly 
 1643, occurs the following simple but significant para- 
 graph — "We are like to be troubled with the ques- 
 tion of patronages. William Rigg had procured a sharp 
 petition to us from the whole commissioners of the 
 shires and burghs, against the intrusion of ministers on 
 parishes against their minds. Divers noblemen, patrons, 
 took this ill. We knew not how to guide it ; at last, 
 because of the time, as all other things of great diffi- 
 culty, we got it suppressed. Only when something of 
 presentations came in public, good Argyle desired us, 
 in all our Presbyteries, to advise on the best way of ad- 
 mitting of intrants, which the next General Assembly 
 might cognosce on and conclude."* 
 
 In 1649, however, the same year in which Charles I. 
 was beheaded, and when the affairs of the whole king- 
 dom were in a state of inextricable confusion, an Act 
 was passed by the Scottish Estates abolishing patronage. 
 
 No man, how keenly soever he may be opposed to 
 
 * Baillie's Letters, Sept. 22, 1643. 
 
24 ABOLITION OF PATRONAGE. 
 
 the system, whether on scriptural or other grounds, 
 will venture to deny that, from the first recognition of 
 the Reformed Church, it had been till now acknow- 
 ledged and acted on, both in Presbyterian and Episco- 
 palian times. The Act of 1649 abolishing patronage, how 
 beneficial soever it may have been, was clearly an inno- 
 vation. It introduced a mode of election to benefices 
 hitherto not recognised by our fathers. And what, 
 then, was substituted for the method now abolished ? 
 In the Act itself, no distinct method is prescribed for 
 the planting of vacant kirks, further than that it is 
 enacted that Presbyteries were to proceed "upon the 
 sute and callinor or with the consent of the conjrreo'a- 
 tion, on whom none is to be obtruded against their will." 
 And it was recommended to the next General As- 
 sembly " to determine what is the congregation having 
 interest, and to condescend upon a certain standing way 
 for beino: a settled rule therein for all time comins^."* 
 How then did the Church thus empowered act in this 
 important matter? Did the Assembly confer the right 
 of election upon the people at large? They did no 
 such thing. They simply transferred the choice from 
 the patron to the kirk-session, giving indeed to the 
 people a full liberty of objecting, but reserving to the 
 Presbytery a power to settle the party elected, even 
 though the whole congregation were dissatisfied, if they 
 
 * The Act 1G49 provided a certain indemnilication to patrons for the 
 right of which they were deprived. " It is further statute and ordained, 
 that the tythes of these kirks whereof the presentations are herehy abolished, 
 shall belong heritably unto the said patrons, and be secured unto them, and 
 inserted in their rights and infeftments in place oj' the patronage.^' 
 
ELECTION VESTED IX HEEITORS AND ELDERS. 2o 
 
 determined that the opposition resulted from "cause- 
 less prejudice ;" and enjoining, moreover, that in the 
 event of the Church courts considering a congregation 
 " disaffected or malignant, " the Presbytery should 
 "provide them with a minister."* 
 
 This Act continued in force for a period of twelve 
 years — twelve troublous years — embracing the time of 
 Scotland's degradation as a conquered kingdom, and 
 itself occasioning discontents and tumults which it is 
 painful to recall. The Restoration was followed by 
 many dreary years of bloody persecution, during which 
 Episcopacy was established, and Presbyterianism was 
 utterly disorganised. With the Revolution of 1688, a 
 brighter day began to dawn. Presbytery was resusci- 
 tated and re-established. But along with this resusci- 
 tation and re-establishment, patronage re-appears. It 
 is in a modified form, but it is patronage still. By the 
 Act 1690, " the right of election is vested in the heritors 
 of each parish (being Protestants), and the elders who 
 are to name and propose the person to the whole con- 
 gregation, to be either approven or disapproven by 
 them. If disapproven, the disapprovers are to give in 
 their reasons, to the effect that the affair may be cog- 
 nosced upon by the Presbytery of the bounds."! Such 
 was the state of the law for the period of two-and- 
 twenty years. In 1712 an Act was passed "restoring 
 the patrons to their ancient rights of presenting minis- 
 ters to vacant churches." i 
 
 * Vide Directory for Election of Ministers. Assembly 1649. 
 t See Note C | See Note D. 
 
2f) TESTIMONY OF LORD MONCRIEFF. 
 
 As already intimated, it were beside our present pur- 
 pose to offer any opinion as to the expediency or inex- 
 pediency of this ancient institution. ^Ye have confined 
 ourselves, in the preceding sketch, to a simple statement 
 of facts; but these, we may venture to affirm, besides 
 the light which they indirectly shed on the question of 
 non-intrusion, do amply corroborate the two following 
 testimonies, with which we conclude our preliminary 
 remarks — the one by a late illustrious father of the 
 Church, the other by his not less illustrious son : — 
 
 "Whatever may have been said to the contrary, 
 patronage was certainly in use down to the latest period 
 before the Eestoration, during which there is any record 
 of the proceedings of General Assemblies." (And after 
 quoting from Acts of Assembly 1645, 1647,) "These 
 Acts demonstrate that patronage was, to a certain 
 extent, still in use even at that period of the Church 
 which has been commonly supposed to have been most 
 adverse to it. But they shew, at the same time, the 
 solicitude of the clergy to get into their own hands the 
 command of as many patronages as possible." * 
 
 The other testimony is that of Lord Moncrieff, in his 
 evidence before the House of Commons in 1834. 
 " As far as my information goes, I hold that election by 
 the people never did exist in the Church of Scotland." 
 " Though election by the people was set forth in the 
 First Book of Discipline, which is known to have been 
 loosely and hastily composed, that never became the 
 
 * Vide " Brief Account of the Constitution of the Est.ablished Church of 
 Scotland," by the late Rev. Sir Henry Moncrieff, pp. 33, 34. 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER II. 27 
 
 law of the Church, and was not adopted. If, therefore, 
 a system of popular election is now to be introduced, 
 at this period of the Church and of the country, after 
 the Presbyterian Church has existed for two hundred 
 and fifty years or more, it must be introduced as a 
 system which can be nothing but a speculative experi- 
 ment, and that on the most important of all the insti- 
 tutions of the country." 
 
 NOTES TO CHAPTER II. 
 
 Note A. 
 
 " The effect of inducting into a parish, as minister, the nominee 
 of the patron, amounts to this : An opportunity is thereby afforded 
 to the inhabitants of the parish of attending, without expense, 
 the church service, of receiving thereby religious instruction, and 
 the benefit of attendance on the sacraments. In short, the in- 
 habitants of the parish may adopt the new minister as their 
 Christian pastor — a character in which he offers himself as will- 
 ing to act towards them — that is, they may do so, if they think 
 tit, but no compulsion exists on the subject. Any number of the 
 inhabitants may, by themselves, or in conjunction with some in- 
 habitants of neighbouring parishes, employ and pay another 
 
 person to act as their minister I am not here 
 
 considering whether ecclesiastical patronage in Scotland is vested 
 in the most suitable person, or whether it might not be better 
 intrusted elsewhere, to the effect of rendering the Established 
 clergy more useful. I merely advert to the practical and legal 
 effect of the law as it now exists. The important fact is, that in 
 Scotland men enjoy a state of liberty in regard to religion ; and, 
 vest the patronage of the clergy where you will, there will always 
 be seceders, because, by the law of toleration, the minority are 
 not bound to receive as their minister the nominee of the major- 
 ity. In religious matters, we legally have God only above us, 
 and the law allows every man to consider himself as in the right 
 
28 NOTES TO CHAPTER TI. 
 
 upon such subjects. Nay, were a minister settled this year in 
 vii'tue of the unanimous vote of every male and female member 
 of a parish of twenty-one years of age, yet, not only may they 
 dislike him after a twelve years' trial, but in that time a new 
 generation has grown up Avho entertain new tastes, new opinions, 
 and may not approve of the choice made by the original electors. 
 The once popular minister may have the mortification to find 
 himself deserted by half the fiock, and see rising in his parish a 
 dissenting place of worship. The National Government, recog- 
 nising the law of toleration in regard to religion, takes no interest 
 or concern in such events. 
 
 " If what has now been stated be kept clearly in view, it will 
 resolve some of the questions that of late have been made the 
 groundwork of bitter animosities in Scotland. In particular, it 
 puts an end at once to what has been called Intrusion and Non- 
 Intrusion into parishes, and to the supposed difiiculty of consti- 
 tuting the pastoral relation between a minister and a congrega- 
 tion without the consent of both parties to that relation. 
 
 " In virtue of the law of toleration, there neither is nor can be 
 
 intrusion The inhabitants are invited to receive 
 
 him (the minister) as their pastor. So far as they, or any of 
 them, comply with the invitation, the pastoral connexion is con- 
 stituted freely, and by mutual consent. But the new minister 
 can intrude upon none. If they dislike him, they need not attend 
 his ministrations. This may be an unfortunate state of matters, 
 but there is no element of intrusion, or attempt to create what is 
 called the pastoral relation, without the mutual consent of the 
 parties to that relation." — Remarks on the Church of Scotland^ its 
 History^ Constitution^ ^c, by Robert Forsyth, Esq., Advocate, 
 pp. 29-31. 
 
 Note B. 
 
 Although the First Book of Discipline bears that it was ap- 
 proven by the Kirk, we find the Assembly ere long appointing 
 committees to "revise it, to consider its contents, and to report 
 their judgments thereon." And in 1565, we find this very 
 explicit statement on the present subject made by the General 
 Assembly — "Our mind is not that Her Majesty, or any other 
 patron, should be divested of tlieir just i)atrouages ; but we mean, 
 whensoever Her Majesty, or any other patron, do present any 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER II. 29 
 
 person unto a benefice, that the person presented shall be tried 
 and examined by the judgment of learned men of the Church ; and 
 as the presentation to the benefice api)ertains unto the patron, so 
 the collation by law and reason belongs to the Church." 
 
 In 1571, we find the famous Erskine of Dun, in a letter to the 
 Regent, expressing himself as follows : — " In specking this tuich- 
 ing the liberty of the Kirk, I meane not the hurt of the King or 
 others in their patronages, but that they have their priviledges 
 of presentation according to the lawes ; providing always that the 
 examination and admission perteane onlie to the Kirk, of all bene- 
 fices having cure of soules." — Calderwood^ vol. iii., p. 159. 
 
 That the abuses of patronage were frequent, and called forth, 
 on many occasions, the indignant remonstrances of the Church, 
 we have, alas ! proofs too numerous and irritating. Even although 
 they had approved of the system, these abuses could not have 
 failed to call forth their bitter complaints. Hear, e. g.^ the 
 statement of the "Gentlemen, Barons," &c., to the Regent and 
 Council in 1571 — "What can be a more readie way to banishe 
 Christ Jesus from us and our posteritie, than to famish the mini- 
 sters present, and tyrannicallie so to impyre above the poore 
 flocke, that the Kirk shall be compelled to admit dumbe dogges 
 to the office, dignitie, and rents appointed for sustentatioun of 
 
 preaching pastors, and for other godlie uses? 
 
 For whill that erles and lords become bishops and abbots, gentle- 
 men, courteour's babes, and persons unable to guide themselves, are 
 promoted by you to such benefices as require learned preachers." 
 — Calderivood, vol. iii., pp. 145, 156. 
 
 Again, in the Assembly of 1582, among the "articles meet to 
 be proponed to the King and Couucill," we find the following : — 
 " That no presentations be given to any with a blank, thereby for 
 filthie lucre to go through the countrie makand most shamfull 
 merchandise, seeking who wiU offer most, and receave least, but 
 that patrons regard those who are recommended to them by Pres- 
 bitries and Universities." — Row^s Hist, of the Kirk of Scotland, 
 p. 100. 
 
 Truly such a system could not stand with this order "quhilk 
 God's word craves, . . . and aucht not to have place in this 
 licht of Reformation ! " 
 
30 NOTES TO CHAPTER II. 
 
 Note C. 
 
 The Act 1690, however, provided compensation to such patrons 
 as were to be dispossessed. It was, in fact, little more than an 
 act authorising parishes to purchase the right of patronage for 
 themselves ; and it is a circumstance not unworthy of note, that 
 onlv four parishes availed themselves of the right thus conferred. 
 Interpreted even according to the most liberal construction, the 
 Act stops far short of conferring the right of election on the people. 
 Wodrow seems to have believed that the design of the framers of 
 the Act was to effect the removal of patronage in every form, and 
 " not to bring in the heritors and elders in the patron's room in the 
 matter of presentation, and that, for this purpose, the word pro- 
 pose^ was used instead of the word/^resew^" — Vide M^Crie's Evi- 
 dence before Committee of House of Commons. The people, how- 
 ever, had no right by this Act to disapprove of the nominee of the 
 heritors and elders, without giving their reasons to be judged of 
 by the Presbyter3\ In these circumstances, to name and propose 
 was just to present; or, if not, then, under the present law, the 
 patron's right extends to nothing more than naming and propos- 
 ing. 
 
 Note D. 
 
 For many years after the passing of this Act of Queen Anne, 
 patrons did not avail themselves of the rights so restored to them, 
 and the settlement of ministers was practically conducted as it 
 had been under the Act 1690. Their rights, however, were in 
 reserve, and could at any time have been legally enforced. Even 
 under the Act 1690, these rights had not ceased to be legally in 
 force. That Act had conditionally transferred the right of nomi- 
 nation, but, except in the case of three or four parishes, the condi- 
 tion had not been fulfilled. 
 
 Patronage, then, in one form or another, has existed in the 
 Church of Scotland during almost every period of her history. 
 For twelve years preceding the Restoration, the right to present 
 was vested in the eldership. For two-and-twenty years succeed- 
 ing the Kevolution, it was conditionally vested in the heritors and 
 elders. At every other period it was by statute vested in the 
 hands of patrons, although for a time they ceased to insist on the 
 exercise of their rights. 
 
 The Church, indeed, down to a comparatively modern period, 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER II. 31 
 
 protested against the institution. Though submitting to its exer- 
 cise, she frequently denounced it as a grievance. "It was re- 
 served for the framers of the Yeto Act, in 1834, to introduce a 
 measure, based on the admission of patronage, as the concurring 
 law of Church and state." That Act indeed was the first formal 
 sanction given by the Church of Scotland to the law of patronage. 
 Hitherto she had submitted to it, but she had done so under a yet 
 unrepealed protest. By that Act the Church adopted patronage. 
 Xay, as we shall afterwards shew, the Act was introduced b}' its 
 framers for the purpose of upholding patronage^ and to stem the 
 torrent which teas threatening to sweep it altogether away. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Principle of Non-Intrusion — Meaning of terras "Will and Consent" — 
 Ctiurch formed on the Geneva Model — Views of Continental Reformers 
 — of our own Church at the First and Second Reformations— of English 
 Presbyterian Church — Revolution Settlement. 
 
 Thus prepared, we proceed now more particularly to 
 inquire, to what the principle of non-intrusion, as recog- 
 nised by the constitution of the Church of Scotland, 
 really amounts. We have seen that, in one form or 
 another, patronage has at all times been in use. The 
 question now presents itself, Is the right of the patron, 
 as conferred and defined by law, an unrestricted right, 
 and have the Christian people no substantial and recog- 
 nised standing in the important matter of the induction 
 of their minister ? We reply that the rights of patrons 
 are justly and clearly limited, and those of the Chris- 
 tian people substantial and well-deQned; while those of 
 the Presbytery, as distinct from both, are, by our con- 
 stitution, most ample and validly protected. Patron- 
 age, as recognised in our Presbyterian Church, whatever 
 may be the evils still connected with it, differs essentially 
 from that system against which our fathers so loudly 
 protested, and which they declared to be " inconsistent 
 with the light of Reformation." 
 
 The one point, however, with which we have now to 
 do, is the standing of the congregation in the election 
 of pastors. The doctrine of the Church upon this point 
 
VIEWS OF CONTINENTAL REFORMERS. 33 
 
 is, That no minister shall be intruded upon them con- 
 trary to their will. About the meaning of these few 
 words the late controversy may be said to have had its 
 origin. The question is, Are we to understand by 
 "will," mere inclination, whether reasonable or unreason- 
 able? or are we to understand reasonable will — a will 
 founded on reasons which may be stated ? 
 
 The writer of these pages did at one time entertain 
 the former view, and was, therefore, not disinclined to 
 support the provisions of the Veto Act. A more 
 careful examination, however, of the subject led him, 
 at a comparatively early stage of the contest, to adopt 
 the opposite view; and subsequent inquiry has con- 
 firmed him very strongly in the opinion that the Veto 
 Act was a violation of the constitution of the Church, 
 and not in conformity with the doctrines which its 
 founders and reformers entertained. 
 
 It is to be presumed that the opinions of the founders 
 of this Church upon this interesting subject were in 
 agreement with those of their contemporary reformers 
 on the Continent, with whom they were on habits of 
 the strictest fellowship — particularly Calvin and lieza, 
 men whose influence was acknowledged as paramount, — 
 the founders of that Genevan Church which, in its 
 doctrines and polity, was the model of two- thirds of 
 the Reformed Churches, and especially of the Church 
 of Scotland. Knox and Melville were the disciples of 
 Calvin and Beza, and, men of stern and independent 
 judgment though they were, they would have paused 
 ere they had differed, on a point of polity, from either 
 
34 MELVILLE'S LETTER 
 
 of the latter. This, however, is not a matter of con- 
 jecture or mere inference. AVe have the distinct testi- 
 mony of Melville himself. The late learned and 
 venerable biographer of Knox and Melville, while he 
 admits that the ecclesiastical polity of Geneva and of 
 Scotland agreed in their radical principles, seems rather 
 disinclined to allow the minute accordance between the 
 polity of the two Churches which Melville himself 
 unhesitatingly claims.* In his letter to the " Pastors 
 of the Kirk of Geneve and Tigure," written in 1584, to 
 counteract the misrepresentations of Bishop Adamson, 
 Melville thus expresses himself: — "It is now almost 
 about twenty-five years (reverend fathers in God, and 
 brethren in the Lord, most worshipful) since that grave 
 and learned men, and (that which is cheefe) burning 
 with wise and sincere zeal for the glory of God and 
 health of His Kirk, informed ivit/i your precepts and 
 instructed with your examples, have, in the first planting 
 of our kirks, conjoined with the purity of doctrine the 
 holiness of discipline. And that their uniforme consent 
 and agreement in all points, witnessed to the whole 
 world, might be left to posteritie, they 3ubscrived your 
 Confession. In the footsteps of which godly and 
 renowned men, we, thereafter insisting, have, next after 
 the heavenly oracles of the Word of God, following the 
 doctrine and constitution of your Kirk, keeped the same 
 
 course unto this present day 
 
 " Of this cometh these archi-episcopal letters written 
 to you and the bretherein of Tigure, by which that 
 
 * Life of Melville, vol. i.. p. 177. 
 
TO THE KIRK OF GENEVA. OO 
 
 marvellous cunning and fyne artificer in faining and 
 dissemblinor what he will, both doeth burthein us with 
 false and forged crimes, and bringeth the government 
 of our Kirk, traduced by many calumnies, into doubt 
 and questioun : albeit he is less ignorant than anie 
 man ; and our own consciences beare us record to have 
 preassed earnestly to that, that the discipline of the 
 Kirk might be taken out of the Word of God so farre 
 as could be, and that it should not passe a jot from the 
 judgment of your Kirks. 
 
 " Wherefore, lyke as it sould be superfluous to us to 
 open up and declare our judgment unto you, namelie, 
 concerning matters of discipline, seeing ivhatsoever ice 
 have in that matter ice icillinglie and plainlie confess to 
 have received it of you, and that we altogether agree with 
 you in all points (so marvellousiie doe our minds and 
 wills, by virtue of God's Spirit, consent in an har- 
 monic) so will we not, for feare both of temeritie and im- 
 pudence, prescrive unto you anie form of answering, 
 or manner of writing againe to the bishop's letters and 
 questions." * 
 
 Now, let us listen to the expositions of these conti- 
 nental Reformers, and, in the light which these reflect, 
 let us read those high authorities, in the framing of 
 which, we have reason so confidently to believe, they 
 were consulted. Let us hear Calvin's interpretation of 
 " will and consent," as expressed in the Ecclesiastical 
 Ordinances of the ChurcJi of Geneva, by him compiled : 
 
 * Vide " Letter of Andrew Melville to the Kirk of Geneva and Zurich." 
 translated by James Melville, Calderwood's History, vol. iv., pp. 158, £:c. 
 
36 Calvin's views. 
 
 " Of vocation of pastors. As to the manner of insti- 
 tuting pastors, as well for the town as for its de- 
 pendent parishes, we have found that the best is that 
 conformed to the order of the ancient Church, this 
 embodying the true practice of what is shewn in this 
 matter in Scripture. That is, that the ministers 
 should, in the first jylace, among themselves elect him 
 Avhom they shall judge proper to serve in the ministry 
 along w^ith them." (The person so chosen is, in the 
 second place, to be proposed to the council, and if 
 approved by them, then,) in the third place, " on Sun- 
 day, intimation shall be made to the people in all the 
 temples, that whereas such a person, naming him, has 
 been elected and approved, according to the customary 
 order in this Church, to serve as minister; but that, 
 notwithstanding, if there he any one who is aware of 
 aught to object to in regard to the life or doctrine of the 
 foresaid, that he may come and declare it to one of the 
 Syndics before the next following Sunday, on which 
 day, also, it may be presented, to the end that no one he 
 inducted to the ministry, except 'with the COMMON consent 
 OF THE W^HOLE CHURCH." * 
 
 Again, in reply to Caspar Olevianus, when consulted 
 by him with reference to the organisation of a Calvin- 
 istic Church, after detailing the process of election just 
 as above, he proceeds, " We then proclaim their names 
 to the people, in order that, if there be any latent vice, it 
 may he free to all and sundry to give information regard- 
 
 * Quoted bv Sir William Hamilton, in his pamphlet entitled "Be not 
 Stiiismatics ; be not Martyrs by Mistake," pp. 25, 2G. 
 
BEZA — SECOND BOOK OF DISCIPLINE. 37 
 
 ing it during eight days. Those who are approved by the 
 silent suffrages of all, we commend to God and to the 
 Church." * 
 
 The views of Beza are not less distinctly stated. 
 From among many passages which might be quoted to 
 the same effect, let one suffice. It occurs in one of Beza's 
 Epistles, Ep. 83, conjectured by Sir William Hamilton, 
 with much probability, as he shews by a striking train 
 of circumstantial evidence, to have been a counsel ear- 
 nestly addressed to the founders, and faithfully fol- 
 lowed in the establishment of the Scottish ecclesiastical 
 polity : — " Since the Great Shepherd requires of His 
 flocks a voluntary obedience, it is fair that nothing he 
 intruded on an unicilling flock ; and therefore, every one 
 should be allowed to appear before his spiritual guides, 
 and in the fear of the Lord to disclose w^hatever he 
 shall deem right and fitting." f 
 
 Let us now turn to the passages in the Second Book 
 of Discipline, drawn up by the friend, the pupil, the 
 correspondent of Beza : — 
 
 " Election is the choosing out of a person or persons 
 most able for the office that vaikes, by the judgment of 
 the eldership (Presbytery), and consent of the congre- 
 gation, to whom the person or persons are appointed. 
 .... In this ordinary election, it is to be eschewit 
 that no person be intruset in any of the offices of the 
 
 * Quoted by Sir WlUiam Hamnton, in his pamphlet entitled " Be not 
 Schismatics ; be not ^Martyrs by Mistake," pp. 26, 27. 
 
 t See numerous authorities, indicating the same views as authoritatively 
 maintained by the other early Reformed Churches, in the pamphlet frora 
 which the preceding quotations are made. 
 
38 BEZA — SECOXD BOOK OF DISCIPLINE. 
 
 Kirk contrary to the will of the congregation to whom 
 they are appointed, or without the voice of the elder- 
 ship."_(Ch. iii. 4, 5.) 
 
 " The power of election of those who bear ecclesias- 
 tical charges, pertains to this kind of assembly (Presby- 
 teries), within their own bounds." — (Ch. vii. 15.) 
 
 Will any one affirm that the terms employed in the 
 Book of Discipline convey more explicitly the principle 
 of non-intrusion than do those of Calvin or of Beza? 
 Calvin says, " that no one be inducted, except with the 
 common consent of the whole Church," " approved by 
 the silent suffrages of all." Beza says, " that nothing be 
 intruded on an unwilling flock," or, as he expresses it 
 previously in the same epistle, " that no one be obtruded 
 on an unwilling flock ; " and yet, both the one and the 
 other, as we have seen, understand " will," not as a 
 mere inclination, whether reasonable or unreasonable, 
 but as a reasonable will, a will founded on reasons which 
 may be stated, and which reasons are to be stated and 
 judged of; for, if none be stated, the election is held 
 to be " with the common consent of the whole Church," 
 '■' approved by the silent suffrages of all." 
 
 The inference from this it is hardly possible to 
 avoid. It is strengthened, however, by other consider- 
 ations. The strict doctrine laid down in the Books of 
 Polity respecting the unalienable authority of Church 
 rulers, renders it difficult to imagine that, with the 
 views then entertained, the Presbytery could have per- 
 mitted their election of a fit and proper person to be 
 set aside without reasons assigned, and by them judged 
 
VIEWS IX FIRST BOOK OF DISCIPLINE. 39 
 
 satisfactory. But, besides all this, we have direct evi- 
 dence to adduce. 
 
 The First Book of Discipline, as we have seen, gives 
 the election to the people, whereas the second vests the 
 patronage in the Presbytery. Now, when the election 
 was with the people, there was, of course, no necessity 
 and no place for the operation of the distinctive prin- 
 ciple of non-intrusion. Nevertheless, as it is presumed 
 that cases mio;ht arise in which the Church rulers 
 would be called on to present, and as in these cases 
 there would be room and opportunity for the operation 
 of the principle — anticipating these cases, the rule is 
 explicitly given, and in language which leaves no doubt 
 whatever as to the meaning then attached to the term 
 non-intrusion. The case is supposed of a people not 
 electing within forty days. In this case, the superin- 
 tendent with his council are to present. Here they 
 are in precisely the same position as the Presbytery, 
 in every case, occupies under the system of the Second 
 Book of Discipline, i. e., it belongs to them to elect. It 
 cannot be supposed that, because forty days have 
 elapsed, the Church should feel warranted to violate 
 her " fundamental principle." On the contrary, she 
 provides for its exercise, and this is the provision which 
 she makes. Here is her practical exposition of it : — 
 
 " If his (the person presented) doctrine be found 
 wholesome and able to instruct the simple, and if the 
 Church justly can reprehend nothing in his life, doc- 
 trine, nor utterance, then we judge the church, which 
 before was destitute, unreasonable, if they refuse him 
 
40 VIEWS IN FIRST BOOK OF DISCIPLINE. 
 
 whom the Church did offer, and that they should be 
 compelled by the censure of the council and Church, 
 to receive the person appointed and approved by the 
 judgment of the godly and learned ; unless that the 
 same church have presented a man better or as well 
 qualified to the examination, before that this foresaid 
 trial was taken of the person presented by the coun- 
 cil of the whole Church For, alto- 
 gether, this is to be avoided, that any man be violently 
 intruded or thrust in upon any congregation ; but this 
 liberty must with all care be reserved to every several 
 church, to have their votes and suffrages in election of 
 their ministers. But violent intrusion we call not, 
 when the council of the Church, in the fear of God, and 
 for the salvation of the people, offereth unto them a 
 sufficient man to instruct them, whom they shall not 
 be forced to admit before just examination, as before 
 is said." — First Book, ch. iv. 4. 
 
 Here, we are not only told explicitly what was not 
 held to be intrusion, but we are also told, that if ^' the 
 Church could justly reprehend nothing in his life, 
 doctrine, nor utterance," then was " the church " to 
 receive the person appointed and approved. 
 
 Again, in 1570, we have the voice of the Church in 
 this matter, just eight years before the Second Book of 
 Discipline was finally agreed upon. Bishops, regarded 
 as visitors, it was agreed by the Assembly, might 
 appoint ministers " with consent of the ministers of that 
 province, and consent of the flock to whom they shall 
 be appointed." The procedure upon presentations is 
 
SECOND REFORMATION. 41 
 
 taken up by that same Assembly (1570), as to which 
 a report given in on the subject bears, " Providing 
 always, that the consent of the flock be had, or else a 
 reasonable cause be showed by them wherefore not.'^ 
 
 The answer, too, of the Synod of Fife in 1596, quoted 
 page 19 for another purpose, bears very strongly on the 
 point. "The election of pastors should be made by 
 them who are pastors, and to such as are chosen the 
 Jlock and patron should give their consent and protection." 
 
 Such was the doctrine of the Church of Scotland dur- 
 ing the period immediately succeeding the reformation 
 from Popery. The reader will perceive a marked ten- 
 dency on the part of the Church to confer on Presby- 
 teries the right of electing to vacant charges, as well 
 as the privilege of collation. They protested against 
 patronage as it had been in use in the Popish Church, 
 but their object vvas not so much to substitute for it a 
 popular as a clerical election. Their doctrine was, 
 election by the Presbytery and consent by the people, 
 reserving to the latter the right of reasonable objection 
 — of refusing their consent when they could give good 
 reasons for so doing. It seems extremely probable that 
 it was this obvious tendency and desire of the Church 
 rulers to appropriate to themselves the right of election 
 of ministers that suggested the very stringent clause in 
 the Act 1592, and which is given in such a form that it 
 may be considered as even containing a condition on 
 which the Presbyterian form of government was to be 
 held as established — " Providing the foresaid Presby- 
 teries be bound and astricted to receive and admit 
 
42 ASSEMBLIES SUBSEQUENT TO 1638. 
 
 whatsomever qualified minister presented by His Ma- 
 jesty or other lay patrons." 
 
 Omitting, as not necessary to our inquiry, all further 
 examination of the intervening period, let us endeavour 
 now to ascertain the doctrine held by the Church on the 
 subject of non-intrusion, at the period immediately 
 succeeding the Second Keformation. As already stated, 
 the famous Assembly of 1638, and several that suc- 
 ceeded, make no mention of patronage, though called 
 upon to enumerate their grievances. Occasional cases 
 of something very like intrusion might be quoted as 
 perpetrated about this time — the time of Henderson, 
 and Baillie, and Gillespie, and Samuel Rutherford, and 
 other worthies of the reforming period. Baillie, in his 
 Journals of the various Assemblies of which he was a 
 member, hints at such occurrences. The Assembly, in 
 these days, ruled with a rod of iron. Let us note a 
 specimen or two. "Wednesday the 4th, Mr. John 
 Collins, after long opposition of the Presbytery and 
 parish, was ordained to be received to the Church of 
 Campsey."* "July 31. The question of Mr. John 
 Bruce's admission came in. The patron. Presbytery, 
 and Provincial Synod, urged his receiving. William 
 Rigg and the people vehemently opposed it, because 
 of his great insufficiency and neglect of some part of his 
 trial; he was discerned to be admitted."! Here was 
 opposition, vehement opposition, and reasons given — 
 " because of his great insufficiency," &c. — yet these are 
 overruled. 
 
 • Journal of Assembly 1641. f -'ounial of Assembly 1(542. 
 
ACT OF 1649. 43 
 
 This same personage, William Rigg, was he who 
 troubled the succeeding Assembly 1643, as intimated 
 in a passage formerly quoted : " William Rigg had pro- 
 cured a sharp petition to us from the whole commis- 
 sioners of shires and' buro;hs ao^ainst the intrusion of 
 ministers on parishes against their minds." The in- 
 stances, we may believe, had been both many and glar- 
 ing which called forth a " sharp petition from all the 
 commissioners of shires and burghs." 
 
 We pass on to the famous Act of 1649, containing 
 " Directorv for Election of Ministers." 
 
 In March of that year, the Estates of Parliament, as 
 we have said, passed " an Act abolishing the Patronages 
 of Kirks," and recommended to the General Assembly 
 to " condescend upon a certain standing way for being 
 a settled rule," in the appointment of ministers. Ac- 
 cordingly, the Assembly which met that same year on 
 the 7th July, did frame the famous Act just referred 
 to. That Act conferred the power of election on the 
 kirk-session, reserving: to the con2:reo:ation the ri2:ht to 
 object. The parts of the Act w^hich bear upon the 
 point before us are as follows : — " 3. But if it happen 
 that the major part of the congregation dissent from 
 the person agreed on by the session, in that case the 
 matter shall be brought unto the Presbytery, who shall 
 judge of the same ; and if they do not find their dissent 
 to be grounded on causeless prejudices, they are to ap- 
 point a new election in manner above specified. 4. But 
 if a lesser party of the session or congregation shew 
 their dissent from the election, without exceptions re- 
 
44 ACT AMBIGUOUS. 
 
 levant and verified to the Presbytery, notwithstanding 
 thereof the Presbytery shall go on to the trials and 
 ordination of the person elected ; yet all possible dili- 
 gence and tenderness must be used to bring all parties 
 to a harmonious agreement. ... 6. Where the 
 congregation is disaffected or malignant, in that case 
 the Presbytery is to provide them with a minister." 
 
 Perhaps no Act of Assembly has given rise to more 
 discussion than the one just quoted. That some degree 
 of obscurity does attach to it, as to the relative effect 
 of dissents by a majority and by a minority respectively, 
 is not to be denied. A plain reader, however, whose 
 judgment is not warped by prejudice, nor distracted by 
 the conflicting commentaries of special pleaders, will 
 scarcely fail to suppose that, as the Presbytery were to 
 "judge" of the matter, even in the case of a majority 
 dissenting, they were empowered to call for reasons on 
 the part of the objectors, in order that they might de- 
 termine whether or not their dissent was "grounded on 
 causeless prejudices." They were enjoined to judge, 
 and it is difficult to conceive how they were to con- 
 vince themselves that the dissent was not so grounded, 
 without requiring the reasons on which it was grounded 
 to be stated. 
 
 The opinion of Sir Henry Moncrieff upon this point 
 is clear and decided, and no one will deny that he is 
 both an able and unprejudiced witness in the case. 
 He says, " By the Directory for the Election of Mini- 
 sters, of 1649, if a majority of the congregation dis- 
 sented, they were to give their reasons, of which the 
 
OPINION OF SIR H. MONCRIEFF. 45 
 
 Presbytery were to judge." And he adds, a little 
 afterwards, ^' Though this mode seemed to give weight 
 to the clergy only in the first nomination, or on extra- 
 ordinary emergencies, and more influence to the people 
 in ordinary cases, it is evident that the clergy had still 
 the chief influence in the ultimate decision, as well as 
 in the selection of the candidates. For when the 
 people were divided, which very generally happened, 
 it lay with the Church courts at last to determine 
 between the parties ; and it can scarcely be supposed, 
 with all the purity which can be ascribed to the in- 
 tentions of the clergy, that the candidate who had most 
 favour among them was often rejected." * 
 
 To aid us, however, in ascertaining the mind of the 
 Church on this important matter, let us, as before, 
 observe what were the views of contemporary autho- 
 rities — of authorities whose acknowledged influence 
 Avas great with the eminent men who guided the aflairs 
 of the Scottish Church at the period under considera- 
 tion. The Presbyterian form of government recog- 
 nised in England in 1643, was in 1645 formally insti- 
 tuted as the National Establishment. Between the two 
 Churches the most intimate union subsisted. The 
 iSolemn League and Covenant was common to both. 
 To the famous National Assembly of Divines — the 
 Westminster Assembly — the Scottish Church sent 
 commissioners. Its clerical representatives at AVest- 
 minster were Alexander Henderson, Eobert Douglas, 
 Samuel Rutherford, Robert Baillie, and George Gil- 
 
 * Constitution of the Established Church of Scotland, pp. 34, 35. 
 
46 VIEWS OF WESTMINSTER DIVINES. 
 
 lespie, the most eminent ministers of the time. It is 
 scarcely possible to imagine that, in the circumstances, 
 there could be a difference of opinion between the two 
 Churches on this important matter. What, then, were 
 the views held by the English Presbyterian Church ? 
 On this point there can be no doubt. The doctrine 
 is stated without any ambiguity. For instance, in the 
 " Propositions concerning Church Government, and 
 Ordination of Ministers," adopted by the Westminster 
 Assembly, and concurred in by the Scottish commis- 
 sioners in 1645, the following clear statement is given — 
 '^ No man is to be ordained a minister for a particular 
 congregation, if they of that congregation can shew just 
 cause of exception against hi^nP 
 
 Again, in the ^' Directory for Church Government 
 and Ordination of Ministers," sanctioned by the West- 
 minster Assembly, and supported by the Scottish Com- 
 missioners in 1647, we read, "When any minister is to 
 be ordained for a particular congregation, or translated 
 from one place to another, the people of that congre- 
 gation to which he is to be ordained or admitted, shall 
 have notice of it ; and, if they shew just cause of 
 exception against him^ he is not to be ordained or 
 admitted." 
 
 The terms of the established Directory are quite un- 
 ambiguous. It twice repeats these words, " No man 
 is to be ordained for a particular congregation, if they of 
 that congregation can shew just cause of exception against 
 liimr It minutely prescribes the form to be adopted 
 in his callinir and ordination — " Beini]: either nominated 
 
VIEWS OF WESTMINSTER DIVINES. 47 
 
 by the people, or otherwise commended to the Presby- 
 tery for any place, he must address himself to the 
 Presbytery." Then follow rules for examination. 
 And the only standing recognised for the people at 
 this stage is as follows — "He is to be sent to the church 
 where he is to serve, there to preach three several 
 days, and to converse with the people, that they may 
 have trial of his gifts for their edification, and may 
 have time and occasion to inquire into, and the better 
 to know, his life and conversation. 
 
 " In the last of these three days appointed for the 
 trial of his gifts in preaching, there shall be sent from 
 the Presbytery to the congregation, a public intimation 
 in writing, which shall be publicly read before the 
 people, and after affixed to the church-door, to signify, 
 that, such a day, a competent number of the members 
 of that congregation, nominated by themselves, shall 
 appear before the Presbytery, to give their consent and 
 approbation to such a man to he their minister ; or other- 
 wise^ to put in what exceptions they have against him. 
 And if, on the day appointed, there be no just excep- 
 tion against him, but the people give their consent, 
 then the Presbytery shall proceed to ordination." 
 
 A plainer statement than this could not have been 
 given. And, let it be observed, this Directory was not 
 only " agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at 
 Westminster, with the assistance of commissioners 
 from the Church of Scotland," but was formally ap- 
 proved of by the General Assembly in 1G45. Both 
 the Directory and the Act of Assembly approving of 
 
48 ASSEMBLY 1645. 
 
 it may be consulted by all, being generally bound up 
 along with the Confession of Faith, and other standard 
 authorities of our Church, in that volume so much and 
 80 deservedly prized by the people of Scotland.* 
 
 It is true that, in the Act of Assembly approving of 
 this " form of government and of ordination of minis- 
 ters," the General Assembly provides that " this Act 
 be in no ways prejudicial to the further discussion and 
 examination of the distinct rights and interests of Pres- 
 byteries and people in the calling of ministers." But, 
 fir sty it is obvious that, in the opinion of the English 
 Presbyterian Church and Westminster Assembly, dis- 
 sent without reasons was not to be admitted. Of this 
 point there can be no doubt. Second, In 1645, this 
 was the doctrine of the General Assembly also ; for, 
 though they do not bind themselves to make no altera- 
 tion, "as God shall be pleased to give further light," 
 in that particular matter; yet, according to the light 
 which they then had, they approve of the whole, and 
 they adopt the whole as their Directory. How grate- 
 fully and cordially they did so, Baillie tells us in his 
 letter, dated April 25, 1645, speaking with the authority 
 both of a commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, 
 andt)f a member of the General Assembly of the Church. 
 His words are as follows: — "On Thursday we were 
 
 brou^rht to the Assemblv Because of the 
 
 lono-ino" desire of all to know what we brouojht, and to 
 deliver the minds of some from their fears, lest we had 
 other things than we at first would bring forth, all 
 
 * Vile " Form of Pres^vterial Church <ioverninen;," &c. 
 
GUIDE TO MEANING OF ACT 1G49. 49 
 
 was presently read ; the letters of the English Assem- 
 bly, our commissioner's letters, the Directory from end to 
 end, the Directory for Ordination, the votes of Govern- 
 ment so far as had passed the Assembly, and some 
 other papers. All was heard icith great applause and 
 contentment of all. It was one of the fairest Assemblies 
 1 had seen : the choicest of the ministry and elders of 
 all Scotland well convened ; almost the whole Parlia- 
 ment, nobles, barons, bm'ghs, and all the considerable 
 persons who were in town. ... A numerous Com- 
 mittee was appointed to examine all punctually, which 
 we were desired to attend. In five or six days we 
 went through, and, by God's assistance, gave all men 
 satisfaction in everything. The brethren from whom 
 we expected most fashry were easily satisfied ; all did 
 lovingly condescend to the alterations I had so much 
 opposed, whereof I was very glad, only Mr. And. K. 
 was oft exceeding impertinent with his ostentation of 
 antiquity, and Mr. D. Calderwood was oft fashious with 
 his very rude and humorous opposition, yet we got 
 them all at last contented, and the Act^ which Mr. 
 Gillespie drew very well, consented to, in the Commit- 
 tee first, and thereafter in the Assembly, with a joy 
 unspeakable, blessed be God." 
 
 These quotations throw a far clearer light on the 
 Act 1649, than do the ingenious commentaries of clever 
 polemics, whether lay or clerical, eager to carry a point, 
 and to defeat an adversary. The testimony which they 
 give is that of witnesses, speaking to plain facts, and 
 not biassed by any favourite theory, to which prejudice 
 
 D 
 
50 BAILLIE'S opinion of act 1649. 
 
 might lead them, even unconsciously, to shape their ex- 
 positions. Can it be reasonably supposed that these 
 men of large experience and matured views, should, in 
 four short years, have so far changed their opinions on 
 so material a matter? From the known character of 
 the men, were they likely to do so ? The thing is no 
 doubt possible. It is, however, most improbable. And 
 surely, in the circumstances, if the most obvious reading 
 of the Act 1649 seems to indicate that, in every case of 
 objections against an election, the objectors were re- 
 quired to state their grounds, that these might be 
 judged of by the Presbytery, or even if the matter were 
 doubtful, the known and solemnly recorded opinions — 
 not only of men, and of an Assembly held in highest 
 veneration by the framers of the Act, and with whom 
 they had formed a most strict union in all matters of 
 Church government, but of these very framers them- 
 selves — ought to guide us to the only interpretation by 
 which their consistency can be maintained.* Baillie, 
 
 * The Assembly having received entire authority in the matter, to regu- 
 late the mode, and to vest the right of election as to them seemed best, 
 would have required no such elaborate and intricate Act, had their inten- 
 tion been frankly to declare that the simple dissent of a majority was to bar 
 the settlement. A word would have done it. This we humbly think an 
 important consideration. Clearly they did not wish to do so, and yet, after 
 the very ample powers committed to them by the Estates, they could not 
 but seem to do something in favour of popular rights. The boon would at 
 best have been a paltry one to parishioners, not one of whom, in these times, 
 durst have ventured to absent himself from his parish church, but was 
 compelled, edified or not edified, to attach himself to the man whom the 
 Presbytery had inducted. Yet even this they would not grant. "We fear 
 the remarks of Balfour, in his Annals, on the Act of Parliament and on the 
 Assembly, were not without some foundation. He says, "And this Act, to 
 make it the more specious, they coloured it with the liberty of the people to 
 choose their own ministers ; yet the General Assembly holden at Edinburgh, 
 
CONDITION OF CHURCH AND NATION. 51 
 
 who justly characterises the Act as "a general, con- 
 fused draught, leading into as many questions as any 
 pleased to make," after stating the contending doctrines 
 of Mr. David Calderwood and Mr. S. Eutherford as to 
 where the right of election should be vested, says, 
 " Most of us were in Mr. Gillespie's mind, in his Mis- 
 cellanies, that the direction was the Presbytery's, the 
 election the Session's, and the consent the people's."* 
 
 The period which immediately succeeded is one, the 
 contemplation of which is fitted to fill the heart with 
 shame and sorrow. Kirkton, indeed, has fondly cha- 
 racterised it as a period of prevailing godliness; and 
 many, in our own day, have quoted his select descrip- 
 tions as indicating a season of refreshing, the like of 
 which had not been previously witnessed, and which 
 has never since been equalled in the Church of Scot- 
 land. That much of true piety and of holy zeal did 
 then exist, we would not willingly question — that many 
 bright examples of true godliness were then exhibited, 
 we are well assured. But the authentic annals of the 
 time, including, among others, the recorded proceedings 
 of the General Assembly, present, it must be confessed, 
 a picture of the condition of the country at large, which 
 it does not afford us much gratification to contemplate. 
 Anarchy prevailed. The nation was in a state of almost 
 
 in the months of July and August this same year, made a verj' sore mint 
 ti) have snatched this shadow from the people (notwithstanding their 
 former pretences), collationed the sole power on the Presbyteries, and out- 
 fooled the people of that right they formerly pretended did only and 
 especially belong to them,y«re divino.'^ 
 * See Note A. 
 
52 DISMAL PEKIOD. 
 
 perpetual turmoil. The rulers were divided in their coun- 
 sels. The Church claimed and exercised a right of in- 
 terference in all important state affairs, not excluding 
 those relating to the conduct of military operations. 
 And if at any time her advice was not followed by those 
 Avho, for the while, happened to be in power, her sons, 
 too faithful to permit her influence to be despised, 
 emitted their fulminations from the pulpit and in their 
 published manifestoes so effectively as in general to 
 compel their adversaries to succumb. Meanwhile, with- 
 in the Church herself, dissensions were germinating. 
 Ere long she was rent asunder by contending factions 
 — mutually recriminating, mutually deposing, mutually 
 excommunicating. The spirit of faction rendered the 
 kingdom an easy prey to a foreign invader. The nation 
 was vanquished. The sway of the conqueror of Scotland 
 was exercised, no doubt, with mildness. The burden 
 of her dee:radation was made as lionht as circumstances 
 would permit ; but her independence was gone — it lay 
 at the feet of a foreign dictator. The marks of that in- 
 dependence were swept away. Among these, the Gene- 
 ral Assemblies of her Church had been conspicuous. 
 These were forcibly dispersed and authoritatively pro- 
 hibited. 
 
 From 1649 down to 1690, there are no authentic 
 records of our Church to be consulted. The edicts of 
 the four Assemblies which were permitted to meet have 
 not been recognised as of authority. The principle of 
 non-intrusion appears, in many instances, to have been 
 despised. The contending factions, it would seem, were 
 
DISMAL PERIOD. 53 
 
 in many cases resolute to have each a presentee of their 
 own peculiar views. Says Baillie, in 1654 — '^As for our 
 Church affairs, thus they stand. The Parliament of Eng- 
 land has given to the English judges and sequestrators 
 a very ample commission to put out and in ministers, 
 as they see cause. . . . Our churches are in great 
 confusion. No intrant gets any stipend till we have 
 petitioned and subscribed some acknowledgment to the 
 English. When a few of the Remonstrants and Inde- 
 pendent party will call a man, he gets the kirk and the 
 stipend ; but whom the Presbytery, and well nigh the 
 whole congregation, calls and admits, he must preach in 
 the fields or in a barn, without stipend." In this same 
 letter, Baillie details sundry cases of intrusion ; but it is 
 observable, by the way, that the power of the English 
 conquerors had introduced a modified form of toleration 
 — men were permitted " to preach in the fields or in a 
 barn." Having narrated one case of forcible intrusion, 
 he says — " In this glass see our condition. It is so in 
 sundry congregations already, and like to be so in many 
 more." AVe dwell not, however, on these painful scenes. 
 The Church was now fast vermncr to that state of 
 anarchy which, after the Restoration, was succeeded by 
 a lengthened persecution. 
 
 The next authoritative record which presents itself 
 is the Revolution Settlement. The terms of the Act 
 1690 admit of no dispute. In it the powers of the Pres- 
 byteries are amply preserved, and the ancient rights of 
 the people secured and defined. " Their Majesties, with 
 consent of the Estates of Parliament, do statute and 
 
54 REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT. 
 
 declare, that, in case of the vacancy of any particular 
 church, and for supplying the same with a minister, the 
 heritors of the said parish (being Protestants), and the 
 elders, are to name and propose the person to the whole 
 congregation, to be either approven or disapproven by 
 them ; and if they disapprove, that the disapprovers give 
 in their reasons, to the effect the affair may be cognosced 
 upon by the Presbytery of the bounds, at whose judg- 
 ment, and by whose determination, the calling and entry 
 of a particular minister is to be ordered and concluded." 
 Such, with reference to the point now under considera- 
 tion, are the terms of the Revolution Settlement — a 
 settlement which re-established the Presbyterian Church 
 in Scotland, which restored the old landmarks, and re- 
 built the bulwarks which had fallen into decay, or had 
 been levelled by the hand of violence and tyranny — a 
 settlement which the Church has ever since referred to 
 as the charter of her rights, securing to her the precious 
 liberties for which our fathers had contended. It was 
 an Act of the State, no doubt, not of the Church, and 
 has therefore, by some, been characterised as funda- 
 mentally Erastian; but it was an Act of the State esta- 
 blishing the Church anew, restoring the very government 
 which she had prescribed, sanctioning the same doctrines 
 which she had embodied in her Confession, adding the 
 civil authority to what the Church had previously de- 
 termined ; and, so far as the principle of non-intrusion 
 was concerned, the Act was simply declaratory, re-en- 
 acting what the Church herself had decreed in 1649, 
 and what again was re-enacted, for the purpose of re- 
 
REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT. 55 
 
 moving doubts and difficulties which had occurred, in 
 1843, by the passing of the Act entitled "Lord Aber- 
 deen's Bill." 
 
 As far as the principle before us is concerned, the 
 provisions of the Eevolution Settlement have continued 
 in force till now. It is not be denied that for a time 
 these provisions were overlooked. The Church herself 
 neglected them. She tolerated, she practised intru- 
 sion, in as far as intrusion really was practicable under 
 a system which compelled none to receive the ministra- 
 tions of a man whom they disliked, but permitted them 
 to worship under other spiritual guides, as their own con- 
 sciences might dictate, or their own choice might lead 
 them. Up to this point she did neglect the funda- 
 mental principle, until it came to be regarded as a 
 settled point that no objections could be looked at by 
 a Presbytery, but such as touched the life, doctrine, 
 or learning of a presentee. This was the Church's 
 own doing. She acted spontaneously. She was under 
 no constraint. She was acting under a false idea of 
 spiritual independence, assuming rights which did not 
 belong to her, when she thus set at nought the privileges 
 and liberties of the people. She was going beyond her 
 province, which the statute had clearly defined, and 
 which she had accepted and bound herself to observe. 
 To refuse to listen to the reasons of disapprovers 
 and to " cognosce upon the whole affair," was as much 
 a violation of the statute, as to determine to give 
 effect to dissents without reasons, and to refuse to judge 
 m the matter. In either case she ought to have been 
 
/)G PROVISIONS OF SETTLEMENT. 
 
 controlled — kept within her own province — compelled 
 to respect acknowledged rights. Such, at least, as we 
 shall afterwards shew, was the doctrine which our 
 fathers held. Except in some few seasons of perilous 
 excitement, from the oppressions of tyranny, or in the 
 heat of bitter controversy, they did not reach the Popish 
 attainment of believing that men were guilty of attempt- 
 ing to dethrone the blessed Redeemer, when they com- 
 ])elled even the rulers of the Church to respect the rights 
 of others — to have regard to solemn compacts, and to 
 leave to constituted civil courts the interpretation of the 
 laws. 
 
 To refer to cases of intrusion, of violent inductions, 
 of refusal to listen to offered objections, as if the occur- 
 rence of such cases settled the question to the effect of 
 setting aside the right of objecting, except on the 
 grounds of life, doctrine, and literature, is not more per- 
 tinent than to refer to a few cases of presentees being set 
 aside on the ground of simple dissent without reasons, 
 as if these cases settled the point that reasons were not 
 to be required. The Church, as we have seen, has ever 
 protested that no man shall be intruded on a congrega- 
 tion ; but her doctrine has, at the same time, been that 
 objectors or disapprovers should give in their reasons. 
 In no other sense can we understand the Act of As- 
 sembly 1736 — " That it is, and has been since the Refor- 
 mation, the principle of this Church, that no minister 
 shall be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of 
 the congregation" — reading that Act in the light of 
 the other Acts to which it makes reference, and of 
 
NOTE TO CHAPTER III. i i 
 
 the doctrine and practice of the Church as indicated in 
 our preceding review. 
 
 The Church has ever claimed the right of judging of 
 the propriety of every individual settlement. In prac- 
 tice she may sometimes have overlooked the claim — in 
 theory she has adhered to it. One of the elements on 
 which her judgment proceeds, is the call on the part of 
 the congregation ; another is grounds of objection, if ob- 
 jection be offered. She judges of the presentee's qualifi- 
 cations — of his fitness for the particular charge. If ob- 
 jections be offered, not founded on causeless prejudice, 
 but well founded and substantiated, — objections of what- 
 ever kind which prove the unfitness of the man for the 
 particular charge, — and she is bound patiently to listen to 
 every objection, and calmly and solemnly to weigh it, — 
 she rejects the presentee ; for " it is, and has been since 
 the Reformation, the principle of this Church" — a prin- 
 ciple never more thoroughly understood, nor more con- 
 scientiously acted on, than at this present time — " that 
 no minister shall be intruded into any parish contrary 
 to the will of the congregation." 
 
 NOTE TO CHAPTER III. 
 
 Note A. 
 
 Perhaps the strongest argTunent in favour of the opposite inter- 
 pretation might be founded on the opinion of Gillespie, in his 
 Treatise of Miscellany Questions, published in 1649. It is not to 
 be denied, that his opinion, as indicated in that treatise, points to 
 
58 NOTE TO CHAPTER III. 
 
 the right of objecting without reasons : " We give," he says, " the 
 vote only to the eldership, or Church representative, so that they 
 carry along with them the consent of the major or better part of 
 the congregation" (p. 24). And (p. 28), " Though nothing be 
 objected against the man's doctrine or life, yet, if the people desire 
 another better, or as well qualified, by whom they find themselves 
 more edified than by the other, that is a reason sufiicient (if a 
 reason must be given at all)." "Now, men vote in elderships (as 
 in all courts or consistories) fi-eely, according to the judgment of 
 their conscience, and are not called to an account for a reason of 
 their votes. As the vote of the eldership is a free vote, so is the 
 congregation's consent a free consent, &c." (p. 27). In reply, 
 however, to the objection that seldom or never shall a congrega- 
 tion be found of one mind, he says, " For avoiding inconvenience 
 of this kind, it is to be remembered, that the congregation ought to 
 be kept in unity and order (so far as may be) by the directions and 
 procedure of their elders, and by the assistance of brethren chosen 
 out of other churches, when need so requireth." And he quotes 
 with approbation the opinion of Calvin, as adduced by Zanchius, 
 " Pra^sideant plebi in electione alii pastores, et cum ipsis etiam 
 magistratus conjugatur, qui compescat tumultuantes, et seditio- 
 sos ;" although he adds, " Therein there is great need of caution, 
 lest, under pretence of suppressing tumults, the Church's liberty 
 of consenting or not consenting be taken away ; as, upon the other 
 ])art, the election is not to be wholly and solely permitted to the 
 multitude or body of the Church" (p. 30). It must also be kept 
 in mind that Gillespie drew up the Act of Assembly 1645, which 
 Inquired parties objecting to put in the grounds of their excep- 
 tions. 
 
 It may not be out of place to quote the views of Rutherford in 
 his Due Right of Presbyteries^ published in 1G44. Rutherford 
 declares in explicit terms the right of congregations to elect. 
 " The people have God's right to chuse, for so the word prescrib- 
 eth" (p. 201). This view, however, he does not maintain with- 
 out many modifications. He denies that it is " part of the liberty 
 wherewith Christ hath made us free, that every one choose his 
 own pastor; " and he adds, " The prophets and apostles exercised 
 pastoral acts over many who made not choice of their ministry ; 
 % ea, they preached to them against their will, and Paul preached 
 as a pastor to many in Corinth against their will ; and a faithful 
 
NOTE TO CHAPTER III. 59 
 
 pastor may preach to many who never made choice of him for their 
 pastor, and to whom the word is the savour of death unto death. 
 . . . A liberty of the will in embracing or refusing a minister 
 is licence, not liberty. ... If some of a congregation wanting 
 the spirit of discerning, upon prejudice refuse a called pastor to be 
 their pastor, yet, if most part of the congregation elect him, he is 
 
 a pastor to all Here is a ministerial charge which a 
 
 pastor hath lawfully over such as are not willing to submit to that 
 ministry ; the power of electing a pastor is not infallible. What if 
 they, or most of them, upon sole groundlesse prejudice, refuse 
 such a man to be their pastor, is he not their pastor because all 
 consent not ? Are we to think that Christ purchased a liberty of 
 refusing a called pastor ? " (pp. 128, 129). Again, " The people are 
 not infallible in their choice, and may refuse a man for a pastor 
 whom God hath called to be a pastor, because people out of igno- 
 rance or prejudice consent not to his ministry. Nor are we of Dr. 
 Ames' judgment, that the calling of a minister doth essentially 
 consist in the people's election ; for his external calling consisteth 
 in the presbyter's separation of a man for such a holy calling, as 
 the Holy Ghost speaketh'''' (p. 205), 
 
 It is true that Rutherford is speaking of the objections of a 
 minority against a pastor called to the oversight of a flock ; but 
 many of his expressions, it will be observed, are of more general 
 Application. He is proving that "election of a minister is not 
 essential to his calling." 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Spiritual Independence — On this principle, and not on that of Non-Intru- 
 sion, the Secession was founded — Sense in which held by Church of 
 Scotland — Our Liberty result of Struggle between Supporters of Civil and 
 Ecclesiastical Tyranny — Theory of Ecclesiastical Establishment — ^Amount 
 of Claims of Modern Spiritual Independence — If granted, would have 
 established the only species of arbitrary power within the British 
 Empire. 
 
 The controversy which had its origin in an endeavour 
 on the part of the Church, or of a section of it, to 
 secure what was behoved to be the right of congrega- 
 tions in the calling or rejecting of presentees, assumed, 
 in its progress, a very different phase, when it merged 
 into a contest for what has been denominated Spiritual 
 Independence. 
 
 There Avere those within the Church who would 
 willingly have exerted their utmost efforts for the 
 extension of popular rights — for the modification, or 
 even the total abolition, of Church patronage — who 
 were first startled, and then alarmed, by the claim, as 
 put forth, of independent spiritual jurisdiction. The 
 claim was made as of divine right, and therefore un- 
 challengeable. It was a claim which those who made 
 it declared they could not abandon without sacrificing 
 the crown-rights of the glorious Redeemer, and for 
 rights on them conferred by the great Head of the 
 
SECESSION ON SPIRITUAL INDEPENDENCE QUESTION. 61 
 
 Church, in the exercise of which any attempt to 
 control them was an attempt to dethrone the King 
 of Zion, and a virtual denial of the Headship of 
 »Tesus. 
 
 It should be kept distinctly in view, that it was on 
 this ground that the seceders of 1843 took their stand. 
 Spiritual independence, and not non-intrusion, was the 
 principle on which the schism was founded. The 
 controversy originated in the one, but lapsed into the 
 other. The latter was sunk into a position of minor 
 importance. This being the case, if it be proved that 
 the claim then set up w^as inconsistent with the views 
 of the early Reformers of our Church, and not identical 
 with that for which our fathers contended, in their 
 struggles against the encroachments of arbitrary power, 
 when it sought to subvert at once the civil and the 
 spiritual liberties of the nation ; but, on the contrary, 
 was a claim which, if conceded, would either have been 
 practically inept, or would have destroyed the Estab- 
 lishment, by making it an institution intolerable to a 
 free people, or would have subverted liberty itself, and 
 paved the way for the introduction of tyranny in its 
 most repulsive form : it will then appear, either that 
 the mighty contest was for an unsubstantial shadow, a 
 mere word, a thing impracticable, a bauble to amuse 
 but not to benefit, or that the people were tempted, by 
 a show of freedom, to relinquish the very Palladium of 
 their liberties. They were offered a boon by the 
 Church, but, as afterwards appeared, their acceptance 
 of it was to implv a recoornition of inherent riuhts in 
 
62 DECEPTIVE PROMISE. 
 
 the Church to withdraw it when the Church should so 
 please. The mantle of spiritual independence would 
 cover more than that. For a benefit which, being held 
 on a most uncertain tenure, might prove but temporary, 
 there was to be an acknowledgment of arbitrary power 
 beyond the reach of any control. With many the lure 
 succeeded. They were willing to welcome a present 
 boon, though pregnant with future evils. They per- 
 ceived not that their infant liberty was slavery not yet 
 developed, and that by swearing fealty to the winning 
 babe, they wxre sacrificing their liberties to the future 
 tyrant. They perceived not that they were consenting 
 to a demand which might denude them of their most 
 precious privileges, withdrawing them from the security 
 of established law, and removing them from the basis 
 of constitutional right to a deceitful foundation, which 
 rested on nothing more stable than the fluctuating 
 opinions of public men. They were transferring 
 them from a foundation which could not be assailed 
 without shaking the constitution of the kingdom, to 
 one which, at the best, could offer no pledge more 
 secure than the chances of a continued majority in 
 the Church courts, or rather than the caprices of a 
 popular convention not only irresponsible, but at all 
 times too ready to follow implicitly the leaders of the 
 day.* 
 
 It can scarcely be necessary to multiply testimonies 
 
 * " Had the Church of Scotland obtained all that was demanded by those 
 now forming the Free Church, we feel assured that it would speedily have 
 proved fatal to her. By some incautious act of the Church courts, inimical 
 
SECESSION NOT ON NON-IKTRUSION QUESTION. 63 
 
 in support of the statement that the non-intrusion 
 principle became altogether subordinate to that of 
 spiritual independence, and that the latter was that on 
 which chiefly the party seceding ultimately took their 
 stand. They did not, indeed, resile from the former, 
 but the latter they maintained to be by far the more 
 important. 
 
 For example. Dr. Chalmers expresses himself as 
 follows — " With us it is in no manner or degree a 
 contest between two opposite wills ; nor is it the 
 victory that we aspire after, to establish the power or 
 prevalence of the will of the people over that of the 
 patron. . . . We think that in the conscientious 
 exercise of our proper functions, a Presbytery may 
 often be called upon to interpose her negative or veto, 
 as a stay and a correction on the waywardness of both. 
 
 . . We regard the spiritual independence of the 
 Church as far the most important, nay, as the only vital 
 question in this controversy.^^ * 
 
 " Your Lordship already knows, that supposing the 
 first, which is really the greatest interest connected 
 with this question, secured — I mean the spiritual inde- 
 pendence of the Church on the civil courts — you know 
 
 to the people's rights, it would soon have come out that the spiritual inde- 
 pendence, so zealously contended for, was independence only in its aspect 
 towards their spiritual rulers, but was despotism and slavery towards them. 
 The recoil of feeling would have been tremendous — it would have laid the 
 Church in ruins." — The Claim, Declaration, and Protest, subversive of the 
 Authority of Christ, as respects the Church of Scotland, and of the Spiritual 
 Rights of its Members, p. 5. 
 
 * What Ought the Cluirch and the People of Scotland now to do.' pp. 
 34, 35, &c. 
 
64 SECESSION NJT ON NON-INTRUSION QUESTION. 
 
 already how small the measure of non-intrusion is ivhich 
 ivould satisfy many of usT * 
 
 I dwell not on this point. It will probably not be 
 disputed. The very ground on which it was refused to 
 repeal the Veto law, after it had been declared illegal 
 by the civil courts, was, that in the peculiar circum- 
 stances of the case, to have repealed it " would have 
 been tantamount to a renunciation of the doctrine of 
 spiritual independence altogether." 
 
 Let us proceed, then, to examine this doctrine. Let 
 us inquire to what it amounts. There is a sense, and 
 a most important one, in which this doctrine is, and 
 ever has been, maintained by the Church of Scotland. 
 She acknowledges one only Head, Jesus the Son of 
 God — the Head not of the Church of Scotland only, 
 but of the Church universal. No temporal head will 
 she acknowledge. She maintains the doctrine of His 
 Headship over nations. She adores Him as the 
 King of Zion. She worships Him as the head and 
 source of all authority — whether it be ecclesiastical 
 
 • Earl of Aberdeen's Correspondence, p. 41. " So long ns the judgment 
 of the supreme civil court had merely determined that the rejection of a 
 presentee, under the operation of the non-intrusion principle, inferred the 
 statutory forfeiture of the benefice, but did not necessarily imply the asser- 
 tion of a right to control the Church in the exercise of her spiritual 
 function, — the only measure required was one which would alter the law, 
 to the effect of allowing the Church to carry out her non-intrusion prin- 
 ciple, without the risk of the parish being for a time deprived of the public 
 provision made for the maintenance of religion within it. But, now that 
 the civil courts assert and exercise a dominion over the Church in the 
 settlement of ministers, it is obvious that no measure which merely autho- 
 rises or suffers the Church to give effect to her non-intrusion principle, 
 according to some particular method, will restore her freedom in the exer- 
 cise of this the most vital function of her spiritual government." — Convoca- 
 tion Memorial, p. 15. 
 
DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENCE HELD BY CHURCH. 65 
 
 or civil — as at once the Kino^ of Zion and the Kincr of 
 
 CD O 
 
 kings. 
 
 Her doctrine on this point is unambiguously stated 
 in her acknowledo-ed standards — in her Books of Disci- 
 pline and her Confession of Faith. In these, a line of 
 demarcation is drawn between the civil and the spiritual 
 jurisdictions. To Christ, the source of all power — the 
 Kino; of nations and the Kino; of Zion — she attributes 
 both. The rulers in the one and in the other serve 
 under Him, and are bound to govern according to His 
 laws. Both must bow to His sceptre. He who pro- 
 claims, "Lo, I am with you always," also declares, 
 "By me kings reign, and princes decree justice." To 
 each He has prescribed a separate sphere of jurisdiction. 
 The one embraces things civil, the other things spi- 
 ritual. Neither may invade the province of the other. 
 If invasion of the spiritual province, on the part of the 
 civil ruler, may be described as a dethroning of Christ 
 as the King of Zion, the invasion of the civil province, 
 on the part of the ecclesiastical ruler, may equally be 
 described as a dethroning of Christ as the King of 
 nations. 
 
 To this invasion there is a tendency on either side.* 
 The Erastian doctrine, in its several modifications, on 
 the one side, tends to the former — the Popish doctrine, 
 in its several modifications, tends to the latter. The 
 
 * History, however, declares, that the tendency has hitherto been 
 strongest on the side of the Church. " The theoretical fear," said Dr. Chal- 
 mers, in a sermon preached by him in London in 1833, " is lest the State 
 should meddle with the prerogatives of the Church ; the historical fact is, 
 that the Church meddles with the prerogatives of the State." 
 
 E 
 
G6 TENDENCY TO MUTUAL ES^VASION 
 
 Church of Scotland protests against them both. In 
 practice, indeed, she has sometimes attempted a spi- 
 ritual domination even in civil matters, but her acknow- 
 ledged standards give no countenance to the attempt ; 
 and good cause have we of gratitude to the God of 
 nations, that instruments were not awanting to resist 
 such bold endeavours and to suppress them. 
 
 Out of the long-continued struggle between regal 
 tyranny, affecting supremacy both in Church and State, 
 and priestly domination claiming authority directly 
 from the source of all power, and assuming, in the name 
 of Christ, dominion over the consciences of men, has 
 arisen that glorious system of liberty, civil and religious, 
 which it is now our privilege to enjoy. To the memory 
 of our. Covenanting fathers w^e owe a debt of gratitude 
 which we never can repay ; but not to them alone are 
 we indebted for the liberty which we now possess. 
 The unchecked triumph of their principles would have 
 been as fatal to true freedom as that of those whom 
 they opposed. The very semblance of liberty of con- 
 science they repudiated and abhorred. There was a 
 counterpoise of tyrannical influences — a mutual repres- 
 sion of antagonistic tyrannies ; and, in God's good 
 providence, the one was compelled so to modify and 
 restrict the other, that true liberty has been the 
 blessed result. The effect of the deadly struggle has 
 been the full recognition of the Headship of Christ, 
 and the marking out with more distinctness of the 
 respective limits of the two jurisdictions. The one 
 repressed the usurpations of the other. Both were 
 
^BY CHURCH AND STATE RULERS. 67 
 
 inclined to affect the Headship — the one on the ground 
 of royal supremacy, the other of what is now termed 
 spiritual independence. Both claimed a right divine. 
 The one repressed Erastian — the other ecclesiastical or 
 Popish supremacy. The one had claimed a divine 
 right to legislate and adjudicate for the Church at will, 
 as being, in virtue of his kingly authority, her temporal 
 head; and he was resisted and repelled. The other 
 claimed the same right, in virtue of similar authority 
 derived from Christ; and was resisted and controlled. 
 Both were taught that each was a usurper. It was 
 seen that Christ might be dethroned as really by the 
 priest as by the temporal sovereign ; and that Church 
 rulers, while professing only to claim that Christ should 
 be king in His own house, might as truly usurp His 
 place as the monarch who pleaded the divine right of 
 kings. 
 
 Since the Church of Scotland and those who now de- 
 nominate themselves the " Free Church " acknowledge, 
 as yet, the same standards of doctrine and policy, let us 
 endeavour to ascertain wherein they differ on the prin- 
 ciple of spiritual independence. The Church of Scot- 
 land maintains that, within her proper jurisdiction as 
 in her standards defined, she possesses unlimited autho- 
 rity. That authority she has derived from her great 
 Head. To her exercise of that authority, as an Estab- 
 lished Church, the civil magistrate has added his civil 
 sanction. She taug-ht the civil mao-istrate that it was 
 his bounden duty to establish the Church — the true 
 Church — and not to countenance error. This was 
 
eS-' ESTABLISHMENT OF CHEED AND POLITY. 
 
 her early teaching — this her stern demand.* The 
 demand was not, and could not be, that he should hire 
 a certain number of men to preach whatever doctrines 
 they might believe or suppose to be the doctrines of 
 the Bible, and administer discipline according to what- 
 ever rules they might believe or suppose to be the rules 
 which Christ had appointed. That would have been 
 leaving the matter undetermined. Each might declare 
 a different system, or the views of all might change ; 
 whereas, as the Church had peremptorily told him, it 
 was the true Evangel, both as to doctrine and to discip- 
 line, which alone he was to countenance and maintain. 
 A creed, therefore, and a system of policy, must be 
 agreed on. 
 
 It was just thus that the arrangement was effected. 
 It could be done in no other way. And therefore the 
 establishment of the Church was not the appointing of a 
 body of men to preach and to administer ordinances, but 
 
 * This, I presume, will not be questioned. The Reformers were called on 
 by the Estates "to draw, in plaine and severall heads, the summe of that 
 doctrine which they would maintaine and desire the Parliament to estab- 
 lish." — C'alderwood, vol. ii., p. 13", The Legislature held itself entitled to 
 form an independent judgment upon what might be submitted. The 
 Church did not pretend "to bind them to their judgments further than 
 they were able to prove by God's plane Scripture." But what was 
 thus agreed to be truth, the Reformers held them bound to adopt and 
 sanction. " Knox, and his enlightened and able associates," says Dr. 
 Buchanan, " were clear and decided as to these two things : first, that no 
 state can, without grievous sin, lend its countenance to the Roman anti- 
 christ, or to any false religion whatsoever ; and, second, that every state is 
 bound to embrace, acknowledge, and encourage the true religion. . . . 
 In submitting tliat summary of the Protestant faith to the solemn and deli- 
 berate consideration of the Estates, and in seeking to have it publicly 
 recognised, they gave unequivocal expression to the latter of the two prin- 
 ciples above alluded to, viz., that the civil power is bound to receive and to 
 own the truth of God."— 7e» Years' ConJIict, vol. i., pp. 4G, 47. 
 
CHURCH LIMITED HER INDEPENDENCE. 69 
 
 was the establishment of a creed and of a polity. These 
 once agreed to by the State, marked out the Church as, 
 by the State, established. Ministers thereafter appointed 
 were appointed for the definite duty of preaching the 
 doctrines of that national creed, and administering the 
 ordinances of the Church accordins^ to that definite 
 polity.* The Church had instructed the civil magis- 
 trate that it was his certain duty to establish that 
 system of doctrine and discipline, and to countenance 
 none other. But if it was his bounden duty to estab- 
 lish, it clearly followed that it was also his bounden 
 duty to maintain, the truth when established ; or, in 
 other words, to take order that the doctrine taught, 
 and the policy observed, were none other than those 
 established. Such were the views of the founders ot 
 our Church, and such, with reference to the point 
 before us, is still the doctrine of the Church of Scot- 
 land. 
 
 * The Confession was speedily ratified. " These articles," says Calder- 
 wood (vol. ii., p. 37), " were read in face of Parliament, and ratified by the 
 three Estats at Edinburgh, the 17th day of Julie 1560." The polity was a 
 business of more protracted arrangement It gave rise to much discussion, 
 and to many disputes. The Church continued to press the subject on the 
 notice of the Legislature ; and, after the full establishment of Presbytery 
 in 1592, refused to consider the "external gubeniation of the Kirk" as a 
 matter debatable. The first of the celebrated questions proponed by the 
 king in 1596 was—" May not the maters of external gubernation of the 
 Kirk be disputed, salvo Jide et religione ? " The answer was, " Therj may not:'' 
 And this reply they ground on several reasons, and on this among others. 
 " The government of the Kirk being already established, and constituted 
 upon good grounds of the Word of God, by lawes of the countrie, and more 
 than threttie years' possession " They add— "Let the king and counsell 
 consider how intolerable they would think it, to cast in doubt the funda- 
 mentall lawes of the kingdom and acts of Parliament ; or, if any man 
 Avould putt in arbitremeut his undoubted possession, leaning upon a law, 
 and decreit, and right unreduced."— CaWertwooJ, vol. v., p. 585. 
 
70 CIVIL POWER CIRCA SACRA. 
 
 The Church has limited her own independence on the 
 point of doctrine — just as the individual independence 
 of every minister of every Church which acknowledges 
 a recognised standard of doctrine, is limited by the 
 acknowledged creed. She may teach nothing contrary 
 to the Confession of Faith.* She has limited her own 
 independence on the point of discipline. She may not 
 act but in accordance with the established polity. In 
 doing so she is acting, not in obedience to the prescrip- 
 tions of the civil power^ hut in accordance tviih the doc- 
 trine and discipline which of old she did herself prescribe, 
 and to which every member who now belongs to her 
 courts declared, on his entrance, his conscientious 
 adherence. Yet in this matter the civil power has a 
 very special interest. The Church has taken the civil 
 ruler bound to maintain that doctrine and form of 
 discipline. She prescribed it ; she pressed it on him. 
 She warned him, on his fidelity to the God of kings, to 
 accept, maintain, and establish it. Whenever he 
 attempted, according to his own will, to alter it, she 
 protested and resisted. He has sworn to the nation 
 that he will uphold it. It is solemnly ratified by Acts 
 of Parliament, and has become a part of the laws and 
 of the constitution of the kingdom. 
 
 All this is obvious. None, perhaps, will dispute it ; 
 and from it certain consequences flow, which are incon- 
 sistent with the modern views of spiritual independence. 
 
 It is obvious, for example, that if the civil power has 
 become bound to the Church herselfj and to the nation, 
 
 • See Note A. 
 
STATE COXTEOL. 71 
 
 to uphold this doctrine and form of polity, he must pos- 
 sess authority to prevent or punisli deviations from it 
 in the manner proper to himself, that is, by the inflic- 
 tion of civil penalties. It is not his province to judge 
 of deviations by direct reference to the Word of God. 
 That were Erastianism. But it is his to judge of devia- 
 tions by reference to that polity which, out of the Word, 
 the Church herself has procured to be embodied among 
 the nation's laws. Should even a majority of the 
 Church's office-bearers violate that polity, he Avould be 
 bound to protect the minority who adhered to it. In 
 doing so, he would be only acting as the Church herself 
 has taken him bound to act ; he would be only doing 
 what the Church has, from the beginning, solemnly 
 warned him was not only his right, but his imperative 
 duty. He would just be protecting the Church of 
 Knox, and Melville, and Henderson, and Rutherford, 
 from the inroads of modern innovators. 
 
 It is possible, indeed, at least conceivable, that these 
 innovations might be improvements, but with that the 
 civil authority, acting as a judge, has nothing to do. 
 His guide is the rule embodied in the statute. The in- 
 novators might plead conscientious conviction. Our 
 lathers would have told them, that with the conscience, 
 the civil ruler^ as such, has nothing to do. They might 
 appeal to Scripture. Our fathers would have told them 
 that with the interpretation of Scripture, the ruler 
 might not interfere, unless he would underlie the charge 
 of Erastianism. He must look to the statute, and to 
 the statute alone, else he invades the spiritual jurisdic- 
 
72 MARROW OF LATE C0NTR0\T:KSY. 
 
 tion. And, looking to the statute, which it is his pro- 
 vince to do, he is bound to protect the Church, with 
 her creed and polity, both from invasion from without 
 and innovation within — to protect inviolate the people's 
 rights, which their fathers have bequeathed as their 
 most precious inheritance, in that Church, the doctrine 
 and discipline of which they embodied, among the 
 nation's laws, in order that, protected by the power of 
 the State, they might be transmitted unimpaired. 
 
 These views, as we shall afterwards shew, are in en- 
 tire accordance, not only with the standards of the 
 Church, but with the views elsew^here expressed by the 
 fathers of the First and Second Reformation. 
 
 Plow different those entertained by the divines of the 
 modern school ! 
 
 In the memorial of the Convocation of 1842, such 
 statements as the following occur : — " The whole mat- 
 ters in which the Church exercises her proper authority 
 must, by the statute, be expressly and effectually recog- 
 nised as spiritual, so as to leave the Church to be 
 guided, in disposing them, by her own sense of duty 
 alone, according to the Word of God, and her funda- 
 mental principles founded thereon." * 
 
 It is not necessary to multiply quotations. Our 
 brethren demanded absolute freedom of control in all 
 matters spiritual, and liberty for themselves to deter- 
 mine what matters were to be considered as spiritual. 
 Tlicy claimed, and acted upon, an assumed right to in- 
 terpret for themselves such civil statutes as related to 
 
 • Memorial, p. 17. 
 
UNLIjVIITED indepexdence. 73 
 
 the Churclvs jurisdiction. They prejudiced their char- 
 acter as members of a spiritual court, by claiming co-or- 
 dinate jurisdiction with civil courts ; thus provoking the 
 aspersion of their constituting a civil corporation. 
 "The real contest w^as not whether the Church courts 
 should be supreme in all spiritual affairs ; . . . but 
 the real contest turned on this point, whether the 
 Church courts shall also determine what are those 
 spiritual matters in which their jurisdiction shall be 
 supreme and exclusive." * 
 
 This was, indeed, the very marrow of the controversy, 
 and had this power been conceded — which it never was 
 from first to last of the Church's history — she had been 
 invested with a power which might have proved not 
 only subversive of the liberties of her people, but fatal 
 to herself. Armed with this power, an innovating ma- 
 jority, claiming obedience from all as to the will of 
 Christ, might have subverted the whole constitution of 
 the Church. They might have changed her doctrine, 
 subverted her discipline, and trampled the liberties of 
 her people under their feet. Is it not asserted that, at 
 one period of the Church, " so extensively had heretical 
 doctrine and a sceptical spirit spread among the clergy, 
 that the purpose was deliberately entertained to get rid 
 of the Confession of Faith, as the grand hindrance to the 
 free thinking that was abroad ? " f Were the power 
 
 * Popery of Spiritual Independence, p. 5. 
 
 f Dr. Buchanan's Ten Years' Conflict, vol. i., p. 194. In point of fact, such 
 departures from the faith have taken place. Among the Presbyterians in 
 England, and in Ireland, though holding originally the doctrines of the 
 Westminister Confession, how many lapsed into the Socinian and Ariau 
 heresies ! 
 
74 UNLIMITED INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 claimed to be conceded, what could prevent such a result? 
 Where would be the security for the people's rights to 
 the means of instruction according to the form of sound 
 words ? Or, supposing that a Presbytery should be- 
 come infected with Antipsedobaptist views, and should 
 refuse the ordinance of baptism to the infants within 
 their bounds, and that the higher courts of the Church 
 should decline to interfere, is no resource left to the 
 Christian parents, although their fathers have be- 
 queathed to them a right, sanctioned by their country's 
 laws, to the regular administration of all the Christian 
 ordinances ? 
 
 Or yet again, supposing that the right of the election 
 of the clergymen were conceded to congregations, as 
 indeed may yet be, but that an intruding majority in 
 our Assemblies should ordain that these rights should 
 not be exercised, but that Presbyteries should, at their 
 own will, induct whomsoever they might choose to force 
 upon reclaiming congregations — have these congrega- 
 tions no means of defence against such inroads upon 
 rights secured by the constitution of the country? 
 None. All these are spiritual matters, and, under such a 
 system, there could be no redress. 
 
 Let it not be objected that these are extreme cases 
 not likely to occur in practice. They shew the legiti- 
 mate tendency of the principle. It was by little and 
 little that the Popish supremacy attained its full deve- 
 lopment. The steps were trifling and gradual, some- 
 times almost imperceptible, of that ascent by which that 
 towering summit was reached ; and, under the sanction 
 
UNLIMITED INDEPENDENCE. 75 
 
 of this principle, each was capable of easy defence. 
 Let a nation concede to the rulers of a Church recog- 
 nised as the Church by law established, uncontrolled 
 power in matters spiritual and ecclesiastic, and authority 
 at the same time to define for themselves the limits of 
 their jurisdiction, and that nation shall thereby have 
 erected a power to which every other may be made to 
 bend. The claim of right divine will only increase that 
 power and make it more oppressive by rendering its 
 pretensions unchallengeable. It is of little moment whe- 
 ther it be vested in priest or presbyter, in bishop or in 
 synod. If it chooses to transgress, there are no means 
 of confining it within its proper limits. It makes sacred 
 whatever it appropriates. Its decision brings it within 
 the limits which it is profanation for aught else to touch. 
 And throughout the whole range of objects with which 
 men are conversant, there are few, if any, which may 
 not be shewn to have some bearing on spiritual things 
 — enough, indeed, to furnish a plausible pretext for 
 bringing them, in one form or another, within the pale 
 of that jurisdiction which the rulers of the Church claim 
 as exclusively their own. If all things should be done, 
 as every Christian admits, for the glory of the great 
 Jehovah, there are few over which, in some shape, the 
 Church may not claim control. Civil matters will not 
 be exempted. They have not been in former times. 
 The Church has claimed jurisdiction even in these. 
 The Popish Church did so. The Presbyterian Church 
 has done so. The Church of Scotland has done so, as 
 we shall shew, even in what have been denominated 
 
76 ARBITRARY POWER 
 
 her best and purest days. The claim, therefore, Is one 
 which, how much soever we may venerate the men that 
 make it, and liow much soever we may respect the 
 purity of their motives and the sincerity of their inten- 
 tions, ouf^ht to be resisted to the uttermost by all who 
 value freedom, whether religious or civil. 
 
 The granting of this claim would, we have said, have 
 been subversive of liberty. We add that it would have 
 amounted to the establishing of the only species of 
 arbitrary power recognised by the British constitution, 
 or tolerated within the British empire.* The supreme 
 court of the Church possesses both legislative and 
 judicial authority. Within the ecclesiastical province 
 her power is supreme both as framer and interpreter of 
 law. Add to this the power of defining her own 
 jurisdiction, and you clothe her with unlimited arbi- 
 trary authority. In civil matters no such power is 
 
 * No such power is held by any Church, whether established or non- 
 established. "AVhile indul^'ing in frequent reflections against the subjec- 
 tion of the Established Church to the civil power, are they themselves free^ 
 in the strict sense of the term — that is, free to do whatever they may 
 define to be a spiritual act — without reference to the idea held of it by the 
 civil authorities? No. Their boasted freedom simply consists of this: 
 liberty to do that which does not infringe upon the statutes of Parliament, 
 as inter])reted by the civil judges. Let them, under the name of a spiritual 
 act, as they themselves may regard it, infringe upon the statutes of Parlia- 
 ment, and where will their boasted freedom be then? The spiritual acts 
 they are at liberty to ])erforni. are not f'lose defined by themselves to be 
 such, but those lield as such by judges of the civil courts. No doubt, were 
 such a decision contrary to their own views given against tht^m, on such a 
 question, by civil interference, a cry of persecution by the State might be 
 raised; yet, notwithstanding such cry, there might be as little justice in it 
 as there is at this day for the assertion of Papal powers, tliat wrong is done 
 them because they are no longer at liberty to dethrone kings, imi)rison and 
 burn heretics, (S:c., all \vhi( h were once claiinod by ecclesiastics under their 
 own definition of spiritual acts." — SmitlCs Truth as Revealed, p. 32. 
 
INCONSISTENT AVITH PEOPLE'S EIGHTS. 77 
 
 recognised in any court. The monarch of the empire 
 does not possess it. The legislature may enact, but 
 does not interpret. The civil courts interpret, but do 
 not enact. Even the sovereign may not act just 
 according to his own will. Were he to invade the 
 rights of the meanest subject, the constitution would 
 protect the subject against the invasion. But the claim 
 of unlimited spiritual independence spurns such inter- 
 ference. It recognises no constitutional rights except 
 as belonging to the ruling power, for the very existence 
 of these would be a limit to its exercise. These riofhts 
 must just be what the ruling poAver may choose to 
 make or to declare them to be. The law and constitu- 
 tion ecclesiastical may, indeed, have conferred these 
 rights, but spiritual independence claims authority to 
 interpret that law and constitution, or, if need be, to 
 modify and change them. If it claims not this, it is 
 not unlimited. If it do, the rights of the people are but 
 a shadow. 
 
 The claim, it is true, is made in another form — the 
 rulers of the Church demand only to act under a 
 delegated authority. They claim to act only according 
 to the Avill of Christ. But when they also claim the 
 right authoritatively to declare the will of Christ, it 
 really amounts practically to the same thing. There is 
 no invasion of riglits which they may not practise 
 under this assumed authority, or which they may not 
 defend under the plea that Christ must rule in His own 
 house — L e.y that they, as by Him appointed, and as 
 determining what His will is, must rule without control 
 
78 NOTE TO CHAPTER IV. 
 
 in the Church. There is no violation of constitutional 
 rights which such a principle would not sanction — no 
 act of oppression which it would not defend. It might 
 confer rights to-day, and destroy them to-morrow. 
 Those who made the demand disclaim infallibility, and 
 yet claim to act as though they were infallible. 
 Nothing short of infallibility would warrant the claim, 
 or render the granting of it safe. It is arbitrary power, 
 and that under the most dangerous form — arbitrary 
 power residing not in one, but in many — ready at any 
 time to exert itself under the excitement which, in 
 large convocations, it is difficult to avoid or control, and 
 rendered only the more perilous by assuming the plea 
 of conscience — that plea under which the rights of 
 conscience have ever been most cruelly violated, and to 
 which the fiercest persecutions of the Christian Church 
 may almost invariably be traced. 
 
 NOTE TO CHAPTER IV. 
 Note A. 
 
 It is difficult to comprehend the meaning of such a passage as 
 the following: "Whatever hinders the Church from going freely 
 to the law and to the testimony, and from adjusting alike her 
 creed and her administration according to that divine standard, 
 must needs be adverse to her purity. Reformation is arrested ; 
 abuses are multiplied and perpetuated; and the house of prayer is 
 often made ' a den of thieves,' where worldly men carry on an 
 earthly and unholy traffic in sacred things." — Ten Years' Conflict^ 
 vol. i., p. 15. 
 
 We can easily gather the purport, but can scarcely divine the 
 
NOTE TO CHAPTER IV. 79 
 
 object, of such a statement. The sentiment is, to our apprehen- 
 sion, altogether inconsistent with the Establishment principle. 
 The creed of an Established Church must necessarily be held as 
 already adjusted, and if not according to the law and the testi- 
 mony, her principles must be false. Her connexion with the State 
 prevents her from going fi'eely to the law and testimony for the 
 purpose of adjusting her creed. If the creed be not adjusted, 
 what has the State established? A creed not adjusted is no creed 
 at all. Or, is a creed a varying thing, requiring occasional ad- 
 justment, like a piece of ill-balanced machinery ? According to 
 this view, a Church can have no fixed principles. Who can tell 
 what changes any new adjustment may effect ? If this freedom 
 be necessary for the Church, what security can be had for the 
 stability of her doctrines? She may be Erastiam to-day, and 
 Popish to-morrow — Armenian under one Assembly, and Cal 
 vinistic under another. 
 
 Let this sentiment gain ground in the Free Chm-ch, and fare- 
 well to their asserted adherence to the Scripture principle of 
 establishments. If spiritual independence require this freedom, 
 national establishments are incompatible with it, and imprac- 
 ticable. Yet we do not marvel at the sentiment being expressed 
 by those who lower the principle of establishments, and degrade 
 at once the State and the Church by making money or hire of any 
 kind the one and only legitimate bond of connexion between them. 
 We tremble for the prospects of those whose freedom requires this 
 liberty of adjustment. This is the starting point ; who can pre- 
 dict the course ? 
 
 Besides, what possible meaning can Dr. Buchanan attach to the 
 following provision of an act passed at the Union, and passed at 
 the desire of the Church herself— mi act to which Dr. Buchanan, 
 and those who follow him, have made frequent reference as the 
 very basis of the Church's rights ? That act provides that, " for 
 the better security of the Protestant faith, the worship, discipline, 
 and government of the Church shall continue without any 
 alteration^ to the people of this land in all succeeding genera- 
 tions." What room is here left, in this favourite act, to the 
 Church for "adjusting alike her creed and her administration?" 
 And will any reasonable man affirm that this statute does not 
 impose a civil obligation on the Church not to make any alteration 
 on her worship, discipline, and government ? 
 
80 NOTE TO CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Such sentiments, indeed, would, at an earlier period, have 
 incurred the ban of the Church's stern Assemblies. Our Coven- 
 anting fathers would have condemned them as sectarian and 
 schisniatical. " Whosoever brings in any opinion or practice in 
 this Kirk contrary to the Confession of Faith, Directory of 
 Worship, or Presbyterian government, may be justly esteemed 
 to be opening the door to schisms and sects." — Declaration by 
 Assembly 1648. Vide also preceding note, p. 69. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 Spiritual Independence — Views of the Church of Scotland at both Reforma- 
 tions inconsistent with the Modem Views — Admitted that these Views 
 were unknown to the Continental Churches of the Reformation — Yet 
 this Church formed strictly on the Geneva Model — Doctrine of the 
 Standards — of the Reformers — Testimony of Knox — of Andrew Mel- 
 ville — of James Melville — of the Fathers of the Second Reformation — 
 Henderson, Gillespie, Rutherford — Entire Difference between Principles 
 contended for by our Suffering Fathers and those of the Xew School — 
 Province and Duty of Civil Magistrate regarding things sacred. 
 
 We have yet to consider in what manner this arbi- 
 trary independence may be safely controlled without the 
 violation of that liberty which Christ the great Head 
 has conferred upon His Church, and from the history 
 of our Church, in peculiar circumstances, to adduce a 
 few out of numerous instances to prove that our views 
 respecting the consequences to which the claim of 
 spiritual independence leads, are not merely theoretical, 
 but fully borne out by an appeal to unquestionable facts 
 — instances which shew that the claim points towards 
 something very like Popish domination — that the coun- 
 terpart of this independence in the ruler is slavery in 
 the ruled — that, if this independence be needful to con- 
 stitute a free church, it leads to and implies an enslaved 
 people. 
 
 Before, however, advancing to these points, we pro- 
 ceed to adduce testimonies to indicate the real opinions 
 of the founders and fathers of our Church, on the doc- 
 
S2 CONTINENTAL REFORMERS. 
 
 trine of Spiritual Independence. As before, we shall 
 confine ourselves chiefly to the fathers of the First and 
 Second Reformations — men who contended earnestly for 
 the faith which was once delivered unto the saints — who 
 maintained, in its full extent, the sacred doctrine of 
 Christ's Headship, but who, as they shall themselves in 
 their own words testify, repudiated all approach to the 
 modern notion of the unlawfulness of State interference 
 with Church affairs, and had never dreamt of that novel 
 discovery, that the State stood to the Church only in 
 the relation of paymaster, and that the one species of 
 control which it could legitimately exercise was, in pe- 
 culiar cases, to withhold the hire. 
 
 It might be interesting, as introductory to this sub- 
 ject, and, to some extent, illustrative of it, to lay before 
 the reader the views entertained upon the point by the 
 leading Reformers of the Continental Churches. But, 
 however interesting, it is not necessary. It is a point 
 conceded, in this controversy, that the doctrine of 
 Spiritual Independence, as now maintained, and as as- 
 serted to have been held by the founders of our Church, 
 was unknown to the Continental Reformers, and not 
 adopted by the Continental Churches. The admission 
 is candid : the fact admitted is instructive. That a 
 doctrine strenuously asserted to be essential should have 
 been, if not repudiated, at least not maintained by any 
 one of the Reformed Churches, saving by the Church 
 of Scotland, is confessedly remarkable. That the doc- 
 trine should be asserted only by the Church of Scotland 
 and the Church of Rome, is suspicious. 
 
THEIR VIEWS NOT THOSE OF MODERN SCHOOL. 83 
 
 The admission, however, is made in unambiguous 
 terms by the author of The Ten Years'' Conflict. 
 
 " An interesting inquiry might here be suggested by 
 the fact, that Scotland has been almost exclusively the 
 battle-field of such questions as those which are enun- 
 ciated in the foregoing chapter. If they be indeed re- 
 ligious questions, entering, as there described, so essen- 
 tially into the constitution, and bearing so immediately 
 on the welfare of the Church of Christ — if they be 
 questions on which the Bible gives so distinct and au- 
 thoritative an utterance, is it not singular that they 
 should have been so little agitated anywhere out of this 
 northern kingdom? Such a reflection is natural: it 
 both strikes and influences many minds ; and because 
 the solution of the difficulty is not always apparent, 
 many may be disposed indolently to set down the whole 
 Church controversy about Non-Intrusion and Spiritual 
 Independence, to some peculiar idiosyncrasy of the 
 Scottish mind 
 
 " When it is asked why the controversy about the 
 doctrine of Christ's Headship has been so little heard of 
 out of Scotland, this is the reply which history returns, 
 that by none of the Keformed Churches out of Scotland 
 was the doctrine thoroughly investigated, or the attempt 
 ever made to bring it to bear practically on the fram- 
 ing of their constitution, or the administering of their 
 affairs. . . . Spiritual despotism on the part of the 
 Church over the State, was simply exchanged for Eras- 
 tian despotism on the part of the State over the Church. 
 . . . . It is not, perhaps, to be greatly wondered at, 
 
8 t CHURCH OF SCOTLAND ON GENEVAN MODEL. 
 
 however much it ought to be lamented, that the Ke- 
 formers in Germany, while struggling to rid themselves 
 of the yoke of Popish domination, should have been so 
 little alive to the prospective danger of suffering that 
 domination to pass into the hands of the civil power. 
 .... In Switzerland, also, State supremacy became 
 the order of the day." * 
 
 These statements are very distinct. In connexion 
 with them we request to recall to the reader's recollec- 
 tion the declarations of Andrew Melville, in his " Epistle 
 to the Kirk of Geneva and Zurich," referred to in a 
 former page, in which he so clearly asserts the identity, 
 both in doctrine and discipline, subsisting between them 
 and the Church of Scotland.f 
 
 But let it be further considered that that epistle was 
 written for the express purpose of correcting the mis- 
 representations of Adamson respecting the views held 
 by the Church of Scotland, as on other points, so espe- 
 cially on the important one now under consideration. 
 Adamson " scattered farre and neere manie perverted 
 ])ositiouns, which he ascrived to the Kirk of Scotland ; 
 specially to the French Kirk, Geneve, Zurich, &c." 
 Some of these ^' positiouns " are as follows : — 
 
 '^ Articles which the Bishop of Sanct Andrews gave 
 out in England to the Frenche Kirk at Londoun ; sent 
 to Geneva, Tigurine, &c, 1583. 
 
 "1. As there is a difference betwixt the civill policie 
 and government of the Kirk, so is there diverse govern- 
 ments appointed for the one and for the other. 
 
 • Ten Year's Ccnflict. v..l. i., pp. 27, 29, 31, 32, 38. f Vide p. 34. 
 
TESTIMONY OF ANDREW MELVILLE. 85 
 
 " 2. The civil magistrat ruleth in his politick effairs 
 onlie, and the spirituall governors in the efFairs of the 
 Kirk. 
 
 "3. As spirituall rulers doe exceed their bounds if 
 they enterprise upon civill and politick matters, so does 
 the prince or civill magistrat if he pretend in maters 
 ecclesiastical," &c. 
 
 Such are some of the " perverted positiouns which," 
 says Calderwood, "Adamson ascrived to the Kirk of 
 Scotland." * To counteract the effect of these and other 
 misrepresentations, Melville wrote the letter referred to. 
 He alludes explicitly to this very point. He declares, 
 as we have already seen, the entire unanimity between 
 the Churches. " Of this only," says he, " at this time, 
 would we have you pers waded, that the good order of 
 the Kirk — the which Adamson durst first undermyne 
 secretlie, and thereafter openlie impugne, and now^ at 
 last wickedlie calumniat, faithlesslie mansweare, and 
 maliciouslie to deteast as Papal tyrannic, mother of con- 
 fusioun, and faggot of seditioun — hath beene receaved 
 Avithin our Kirk, conform to the Word of God and 
 manner of the constitution of your Kirk, ever since the 
 first time that Papistrie was chassed away." After de- 
 tailing the machinations of Adamson for the purpose of 
 subverting the established government of the Church, 
 " the king's will being made a law and reason for all 
 things^^ he continues — " See now, although we should 
 keep silence (reverend fathers, and most loving brethren 
 in the Lord), what meane the questions of Adamsone 
 
 * Calderwood, vol. iv., pp. 49, 50 
 
8() TESTIMONY OF ANDREW MELVILLE. 
 
 tuiching the power of the prince in making ecclesias- 
 tical! lawes, and constituting of the policie of the Kirk. 
 . . . He knoweth weill eneugh, nather can he be 
 igrnorant of that which he hath so often read and learned 
 of your most godlie writtings, that it perteaneth not to 
 the prince ather to prescrive religioun to the Kirk or 
 discipline to the pastors thereof, but by his authoritie 
 to confirm e both the one and the other, appointed by 
 God, and sincerelie declared out of His Word by the 
 ministrie of His servants ; to revenge and punish all cor- 
 rupting of cleane doctrine, contempt of holie discipline, 
 and perturbation of lawfull order (for which use and 
 purpose he hath receaved the sword) ; to decore the As- 
 semblies, if need be, with his presence ; to arme the in- 
 nocencie of the ministrie by his safe- guarde and defence ; 
 if there arise controversies among the 'pastors^ sometimes to 
 compose and agree the same hy his authoritie interpouned. 
 . . . But farre otherwise doeth he sitt in the synods 
 among the pastors than he doeth in the throne of the 
 kingdom among the estates; here to make lawes for 
 subjects, and command, but there to receive law^s from 
 God, and to obey. And albeit that some things be 
 called ecclesiasticall, and others civill, and the civil ap- 
 perteane to the common w^eall, and the other to the 
 Kirk ; yet it is not so much to be considered what things 
 are handled, as how, seeing the knowledge of one and 
 the selfsame thing one way, and in some respect, ap- 
 perteaneth to the magistrat, and another way to the 
 senat ecclesiasticall." * 
 
 • Calderwood, vol. iv., pp. IGl, 1G2, 105, IGC. In terms such as these does 
 
DOCTRINE OF FIRST CONFESSION. 87 
 
 The doctrine upon this subject, taught in the stan- 
 dards of the Church of Scotland, is so well known as 
 scarcely to require quotation. A few extracts only 
 shall be given, in order that, by comparing these wuth 
 other authoritative writings — with the writings of the 
 fathers of the Church, and of those to whom the duty was 
 intrusted of framing these standards — we may observe 
 how very far they are from giving any countenance to 
 the modern views, and what credit is due to the asser- 
 tion that, on this point, the Church of Scotland differed 
 from all the other Churches of the Reformation. 
 
 We give no quotations, for that we deem unneces- 
 sary, to shew that the Church acknowledges one only 
 Head — even Christ. Eeference will be made to those 
 only which relate to the power of the civil magistrate 
 in connexion with things ecclesiastical. 
 
 In the First Confession in 1560, section 24, we read — 
 " To kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm 
 that, chieflie and most principallie, the conservation 
 and purgation of religion apperteaneth, so that not only 
 are they appointed for civill policie, but also for main- 
 
 Melville repudiate the " perverted positiouns " of Adamson. While he, as 
 on all occasions, contends for the Headship of Christ and the spiritual au- 
 thority conferred upon His Church, and strenuously condemns that assump- 
 tion of arbitrary power by which, denying "the wonted liberty of the estates 
 of Scotland," and " making the kings wUl a law and reason for all things," 
 James was attempting to subvert the Presbyterian constitution, and to as- 
 sume a " full and absolute power to command and rule in matters als well 
 ecclesiastical as ciyill," he, at the same time, repudiates those notions of 
 independence which Adamson had " ascrived " to the Kirk. Alas ! the of- 
 fence of these days has not yet ceased. There are those still, who, with 
 reference both to that period and the present, and respecting this yery sub- 
 ject, have " scattered farre and neere manie perverted positiouns ascrived to 
 the Kirk of Scotland." 
 
88 OF SECOND BOOK OF DISCIPLINE, ETC. 
 
 tenance of true religioun, and for suppressing of idola- 
 trie and superstitioun whatsoever, as in David, Josephat, 
 Ezekias, Josias, and others highlie commended for 
 their zeal in this case may be espied." 
 
 The Second Book of Discipline, chapter i., sections 
 10 and 11, declares as follows: — "The civill power 
 should command the spiritual to exercise and doe their 
 office according to the Word of God." " The magis- 
 trat neither aucht to preach, minister the sacraments, 
 nor execute the censuris of the Kirk, nor yet prescry ve 
 any rewU how it sould be done ; hut command the 
 ministers to observe the rewll commanded in the Word, 
 and punish the transgressors he civill m,eanes" 
 
 The Westminster Confession, chapter xxiii., section 
 3, declares, " The civil magistrate may not assume to 
 himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, 
 or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; 
 yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take 
 order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, 
 that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all 
 blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions 
 and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or 
 reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, 
 administered, and observed. For the better effecting 
 whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at 
 them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in 
 them be according to the mind of God." 
 
 I confess that, to my mind, plainer words than these 
 could not have been found to express sentiments the 
 very opposite of those propounded by the modern 
 
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 89 
 
 school. I cannot avoid the conviction that, had they 
 been found anywhere but where they do occur, our 
 brethren would unhesitatingly have pronounced them 
 undisguised Erastianism. They contrast, on every point, 
 with the speeches which, during the heat of the late 
 controversy, were wont to electrify popular audiences 
 from platforms, and in Synods and General Assemblies. 
 They are the calm and solemn testimonies of our fathers 
 — of men who, in the framing and the utterance of 
 them, acted on the sincere conviction that they were 
 the very truth of God, gathered by patient and 
 laborious study from His Word, treasured up for their 
 own guidance and that of their posterity ; and which 
 they took the civil power bound, by the most sacred 
 engagements, to transmit to us, their children, unim- 
 paired. But these testimonies were overborne by the 
 enthusiasm of a living eloquence whose fervour inca- 
 pacitated men for listening to the still small voice of 
 the mighty men of other days. 
 
 The paragraphs which we have quoted require no 
 comment. Any attempts to render them more intelli- 
 gible would justly excite the suspicion of a purpose to 
 disguise the meaning, and to confuse the reader. Such 
 attempts have been made. They have been found 
 necessary by some, w^ho felt that, without a comment, 
 the text condemned them. Much ingenuity has been 
 exerted to induce the stubborn witnesses to conform 
 their plain testimony to the questioner's views. The 
 attempt is vain. Knox and Melville, Rutherford and 
 Gillespie, are beyond the efforts of his subtilty. 
 
90 APPEAL TO LITERATURE OF OTHER DATS. 
 
 "They will not hearken to the voice of charmers, 
 charming never so wisely." After every attempt the 
 voice of the ancients is heard calmly yet firmly repeat- 
 ing the unwelcome words — unwelcome, alas, even to 
 those who at one time had sworn adherence to them — 
 " To magistrates most principally appertaineth the con- 
 servation and purgation of religioun." " The civill 
 power should command the spiritual to exercise and 
 doe their office." " The magistrate should command 
 the ministers to observe the rewll, and punish the 
 transgressors by civill means." " The magistrate hath 
 authority, and it is his duty to take order," &c. The 
 shortest and most effective refutation of the explanatory 
 commentaries which have been made on these words, is 
 simply to repeat the text. 
 
 vSince, however, an appeal has been made on this 
 subject to the literature of other days, we willingly 
 2:)roceed to adduce some testimonies, the authority of 
 which none will venture to dispute, how much soever 
 many may dislike the reference. We commence with 
 a few connected with the period of the First Eeforma- 
 tion. 
 
 Listen, in the first place, to the testimony of the Re- 
 formers uttered so early as in the year 1558. In the 
 "First Oration and Petition of the Professors to the 
 Queen Regent," in the beginning of said year, occur 
 these words — "We, knowing no other order placed 
 in this realm but your grace, and your grave counsell, 
 sett to amend as weill the disorders ecclesiastically as the 
 faults in the temporal regiment, we most humblie pro- 
 
FIRST REFORMERS — KNOX. 91 
 
 strate ourselves at your feete. . . . We most ear- 
 nestly beseech your grace, that notwithstanding the 
 long custome which they have had to live at their lust, 
 that they (the clergy) may be compelled to desist 
 either from ecclesiastical administration, or to discharge 
 the dueties as becometh true ministers." * 
 
 We next adduce the testimony of the great Reformer 
 himself. From Knox's famous appellation addressed to 
 the " nobilitie and estats of Scotland," printed at 
 Geneva in 1558, we select the following out of very 
 many distinct and striking passages bearing on the 
 point : — '' Lawful it is to God's prophets and preachers 
 of Christ Jesus, to appeale from the sentence and judg- 
 ment of the visible Church, to the knowledge of the tern- 
 porall 7nagistrat, who, by God^s law, is bound to hear 
 their causses, and defend them from tyrannie" " God 
 requireth of you to provide that your subjects be rightlie 
 instructed in His true religion ; and that the same be by 
 you reformed whensoever abuses creep e in.^^ 
 
 " I am not ignorant that Satan of old time, for main- 
 tenance of his darkness, hath obtained of the blind 
 world two cheefe points : former, he hath persuaded 
 princes, rulers, and magistrats, that the feeding of 
 Christ's flock perteaneth nothing to their charge, but 
 that it is rejected upon the bishops and state ecclesias- 
 ticall: and secondarlie, that the reformatioun of religioun, 
 be it never so corrupt, and the punishment of such as 
 be sworne souldiours in their kingdom, are exempted 
 from all civill power, and are reserved to themselves and 
 
 * Calderwood, vol. i., pp. 335, 336. 
 
92 KNOX. 
 
 their own cognitioun. But that . . the ordering 
 and reformatioim of religioun, with instruction of sub- 
 jects, doth especially apperteane to the civill magistrate, 
 shall God's perfyte ordinance, His plaine Word, and the 
 facts and examples of these that of God are highly 
 praised, most evidently declare." 
 
 One extract more — "Now, if Aaron and his sonnes 
 were so subject to Moses, that they did nothing but at 
 his commandment, who darre be so bold as to affirm 
 that the civill magistrat hath nothing to doe in maters 
 of relio-ioun? For seeing^ then God did so straitlie 
 require, that even these who did beare the figure of 
 Christ sould receave from the civill power, as it were, 
 their sanctification and entrance to their office ; and 
 seeing also, that Moses was so farre preferred to Aaron, 
 that the one commanded, and the other did obey ; who 
 darre esteeme that the civill power is now become so 
 profane in God's eyes, that it is sequestered from all 
 intromission with the maters of religioun ? " * 
 
 To the views entertained by Andrew Melville, we 
 have already referred. Nowhere does he express opi- 
 nions at variance with those which we have just quoted. 
 He fully conceded to the civil magistrate the power 
 which Knox so distinctly ascribes to him. Never, in- 
 deed, was there a more strenuous defender of the 
 Church's scriptural and constitutional riglits. He was 
 ])rcparcd, and sometimes even rudely and fiercely, to 
 resist every attempt at invasion of the spiritual juris- 
 diction, but his resistence was ofi'ered, not to the law or 
 
 • Calderwood, vol. i., pp. 252, 3G1, 36.5, 3G8. 
 
ANDREW MELVILLE. 93 
 
 its authoritative interpretation, but to arbitrary power 
 — to the endeavour on the part of his Majesty and his 
 creatures to make the Sovereign's will the rule supreme, 
 so that he should mould the Church, as to her constitu- 
 tion and form of government, and deal w4th causes ec- 
 clesiastical, just according to his own caprice. He pro- 
 tested against the " king's will being made a reason and 
 law for all things" — against the attempt "to re-establishe 
 a new popedome in the person of the king, that he, 
 being cheefe judge in all causes and controversies, and 
 having absolute power to determinate, he may putt up 
 and cast down religioun at his pleasure, without contra- 
 dictioun." * But that the Church claimed or possessed, 
 or should possess, a legislative power independent in all 
 things of the State, he distinctly denies. " That the 
 Assemblie was accustomed to prescribe lawes to the 
 king ; that they sould command the king and counsell, 
 under paine of excommunication, to appoint no bishops 
 in time to come, and such other calumnies^ are not 
 worthie to be answered ; for, to draw out of the pure 
 jountains of God's Word an ecclesiasticall canon agreeable 
 to the same, and to sute, like humble supplicanis, the ap- 
 probation of the same, is the dutie of the Kirk, Bat this 
 is not to prescrive lawes to the king and the estat" f 
 
 The testimony of James Melville is very distinct and 
 oft-repeated. " Christ is Head, King, Maister, and 
 Ruler of His Kirk, of whose fulnesse all His members 
 
 * Answere to the Declaration of Certain Intentions sett out in the King's 
 Name — Answere to Fourth Intention. 1585. 
 f Calderwood, vol. iv,, p. 271. 
 
94 JAMES MELVILLE. 
 
 participat; and hath committed the rule and govern- 
 ment of the same to the office-bearers within it, as pas- 
 tors, doctors, and elders. In which government the king 
 is not exeemed, but hath his place and power to see and 
 overwatche all these, that they discharge their calling, as 
 they have severallie in charge, in such sort that it is not 
 leasome to him to do anie part of their offices." * 
 
 In April 1586 the Synod of Fyfe had pronounced 
 sentence of excommunication against Adamson, Bishop 
 of St. Andrews ; and against this sentence, as " unjust 
 and pretended," Adamson had appealed to the " King's 
 Majestie's Counsell, Estats, and lawful Assemblie." 
 James Melville drew up a formal and extended answer 
 to this appeal, in which he brings out his views with 
 remarkable distinctness. For example, the appellant 
 had thus expressed himself : " I am not ignorant that 
 suche as seditiously would trouble the estat of the Kirk 
 and countrie will reply, that this maters are ecclesiastical, 
 and belong nothing to your Majestie's authoritie," &c. 
 Melville answers : " But if he will say that this is the 
 opinion of the ministers of that Assemblie, then, truelie, 
 he is ather ignorant of their judgment and doctrine of that 
 mater, or else a malicious calumniator of that which he 
 hnowes. For it never was the judgment, doctrine, or 
 reply es of any of the ministrie of Scotland, that matters 
 ecclesiasticall perteaned nothing to the king or Chris- 
 tian magistrat ; but contrariwise, that first, and above 
 
 • Dialogue ascribed to James Melville. Calderwood, vol. iv., p. 301. 
 Tliis dialogue was written in reply to the declaration set out in the king's 
 name by Adamson. The speakers are Zelator, Temporizer, and Palaemon. 
 The first expresses the sentiments of the author. 
 
JA3IES MELVILLE. 95 
 
 all things, the Christian magistrat ought to have care 
 of religion, and matters perteaning to the Kirk, and 
 employ his authoritie and power to the welfare and 
 good estat thereof, and that he is the minister and lieu- 
 tenant of God, who has received the sword, chieflie, to 
 that effect. Nather doe we denie, that it is leasome to 
 any that are hurt and injured hy the Kirk and governours 
 thereof, to have recourse to the Christian magistrat for 
 helpe and releefe, that he may call for the eulers OF 
 THE Kirk, and examine and see whether if according 
 to the rules of their office, conteaned in the Word of God, 
 that they have judged aright, and done their dutie, or 
 otherwise. Only this we denie, that the civill mao-istrat 
 may use the office of the pastor, in preaching the 
 word, or ministering of the sacraments; or of the 
 doctors, in taking upon him to interpret the Scrip- 
 tures."* 
 
 Plainer statements than these we do not desiderate. 
 Knox and the two Melvilles, we fear, must rank with 
 those whom some modem theologians denounce as 
 Erastians. Their views, however, were not peculiar. 
 They held them in common with all the fathers of our 
 Church, and with the fathers of all the Reformed 
 Churches.f 
 
 We find the Church, previously to the Act 1592, 
 petitioning the civil power to define the limits of the 
 two jurisdictions t— petitioning for the sole power of 
 admission to benefices — for power of deprivation for 
 
 * Calderwood, vol. iv., p. 507. Vide also pp. 507, 540, «S:c., &c." 
 t See Note A. J Calderwood, vol. ii., pp. 426, 485. 
 
96 SECOND EEFORMATION. 
 
 just and lawful causes * — for the full establishment, not 
 merely of a fixed creed, but of a settled policy ;t and 
 we find her, after her policy was admitted, protesting 
 against its infringment at the sole will of an arbitrary 
 monarch — against the subversion of her constitution at 
 the caprice of a sovereign, who claimed authority, at 
 will, to model and remodel her form of government. 
 We find her appealing to the laws and constitution of 
 the kingdom as her acknowledged safeguard. But in 
 vain shall we search for any traces of a claim to act, 
 even within the ecclesiastical province, just as she 
 might choose, without regard to law, or to interpret for 
 herself the acts defining her province ; or to limit the 
 control of the State, in connexion with things ecclesi- 
 astical, to the simple right of withdrawing the fruits of 
 benefices in special cases. 
 
 Proceed we now to the testimony of the fathers of 
 the Second Reformation. 
 
 Of the actings of the Church at that eventful period, 
 many were, to say the least, of a questionable charac- 
 ter. The times were extraordinary. The empire was 
 convulsed. Anarchy was looming in the distance, or 
 rather was beginning boldly to develop itself. If ex- 
 travagant notions were at any time to prevail, or extra- 
 vagant claims to be made, we should expect them now. 
 But, whatever may have been the complexion of some 
 of the acts, the recorded sentiments of the leading men 
 of the period — men of God, whose praises are in the 
 
 * Calderwood, vol. iii., pp. 622, &c., &c. Rowe's Hist, p. 43. 
 f Calderwood, vol. iii., p. 415, &c. 
 
ALEXANDER HENDERSON. 97 
 
 churches — make not even the most distant approach to 
 the extravaofance of modern demands. 
 
 In the famous Glasgow Assembly of 1638, convened 
 chiefly for the purpose of repelling the encroachments 
 and overturning the Erastian usurpations of Charles, 
 Alexander Henderson was chosen Moderator — a man 
 pre-eminent among many men of note, a fearless defen- 
 der of the truth, prudent at once and resolute, — author, 
 in its remodelled form, of that national covenant which 
 was destined to produce such mighty results in the his- 
 tory of the three kingdoms. He must be a man of 
 strange opinions who would charge Henderson with 
 Erastianism. Let us listen to his own statement of 
 his views, and remark in how far they coincide with 
 those of the modern school. 
 
 In the seventh session of that Assembly, Henderson, 
 as Moderator, addressed the Commissioner as follows : 
 " It hath been the glory of the Reformed Churches, and 
 we account it our glory, in a special manner, to give 
 unto kings and magistrates what belongs to their 
 places ; and as we know the fifth command of the law 
 to be a precept of the second table, so do we acknow- 
 ledge it to be the first of that kind, and that, next unto 
 piety towards God, we are obliged to loyalty and 
 obedience to our king. There is nothing due to 
 kings and princes in matters ecclesiastical, which, I 
 trust, shall be denied by this Assembly to our king ; 
 for, besides authority and power in matters civil, to a 
 Christian king belongeth, — 1. Inspection over the 
 affairs of the Church. Et debet invigilare non solum 
 
98 ASSEMBLY 1638. 
 
 super ecclesiasticosy sed super ecclesiastica ; i. e., He ought 
 to loatch not only over ecclesiastical persons, but over 
 ecclesiastical matters. 2. The vindication of religion 
 doth also belong to the king, for whom it is most 
 proper, by his authority, to vindicate religion from 
 contempt and all abuse, he being keeper also of the 
 first table of the law. 3. The sanctions also are in his 
 Majesty's hands, to confirm, by his royal authority, the 
 constitutions of the Kirk, and give them the strength 
 of law. 4. His Majesty also hath the power of correc- 
 tion ; he both may and ought to compel kirk-men in 
 the performance of the duties which God requires of 
 them. 5. The coercive power also belongs to the 
 prince, who hath power from God to coerce and re- 
 strain them by his terror and authority, from what be- 
 cometh not their places and calling. 6. The Christian 
 magistrate also hath power to convocate Assemblies, 
 when he finds the pressing affairs of the Church calling 
 for them ; and in Assemblies, when they are convened, 
 his power is great (and his power ought to be heard), 
 first, as he is a Christian, having the judgment of dis- 
 cretion in all matters debatable and controverted ; 
 next, as he is king or magistrate, he must have the 
 judgment of his eminent place and high vocation, to 
 discern what concerns the spiritual welfare and salva- 
 tion of his subjects." * 
 
 " Stevenson's History of Church of Scotland, vol. ii., pp. 643, 544. 
 Peterkin's Records of the Kirk of Scotland (vol. i., pp. 142, 143), contain- 
 ing the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies from the year 
 1G38 downwards, as authenticated by the Clerks of Assembly. 
 
ASSEMBLY 1638. 99 
 
 The only other authorities to which it is necessary, on 
 this subject, to refer, are Rutherford and Gillespie. 
 These, indeed, as far as the literature of our Church in 
 other days, upon this important point, is concerned, are 
 the standard authorities. They both were men of God, 
 and honoured instruments in His Church's service. 
 Eminently pious, eminently learned, no men could have 
 been better fitted than they were, for the arduous duties 
 imposed upon them. Both were distinguished members 
 of the Westminister Assembly of Divines. Both were 
 brought into direct and frequent contact with the ablest 
 supporters of Erastianism, and, opposing them at every 
 point, triumphantly refuted them. Both have left their 
 opinions recorded for our guidance. Their circumstances 
 and position compelled them to enter minutely into the 
 very subjects controverted between the Church of Scot- 
 land and their brethren who have left them ; and from 
 their writings, especially those of the former, might be 
 gathered a most distinct refutation of every separate point 
 peculiar to the Free Church. They teach the very doc- 
 trines which, as we have seen, were held by Knox, and 
 the Melvilles, and Henderson. If these men held the 
 truth, the Free Kirk is in error. If these men held the 
 doctrines of the Church of Scotland, the Free Kirk has 
 repudiated them. If the views of Knox, and the Mel- 
 villes, and Rutherford, and Gillespie — the fathers of 
 either Reformation — as embodied in their writings, and 
 in the Standards, in the framing of which they took a 
 pre-eminent part, are indeed, on the point under consid- 
 eration, the doctrines of the Church, — then, verily, has 
 
100 GILLESPIE. 
 
 the Free Kirk as little claim de jure as de facto to the 
 appellation of the Church of Scotland. 
 
 " A due attention to Rutherford," says one, " would 
 have saved the Disruption." There is some truth in 
 the remark. It would have led many to pause ere the 
 fatal step was taken. It might have prevented, in 
 many cases, a committal to principles which, if con- 
 sistently maintained and followed to their legitimate 
 consequences, must result not in secession, but ultimate 
 dissent — not in withdrawal from the Church of Scot- 
 land, but in abandoning the principle of ecclesiastical 
 establishments. And we cannot but believe that many 
 a simple-hearted disciple, now occupying an attitude of 
 hostility to the Church of his fathers, would have 
 recoiled from the glittering meshes in which he suffered 
 himself to be entangled, had he been versant in the 
 opinions of that venerable divine, whose "Letters" 
 have enlivened his faith, and quickened his hopes, and 
 cheered his soul, when groaning under a burden of 
 sorrows which men of the world could not understand. 
 No men better understood or more strenuously defended 
 the true liberties of the Church, than did Rutherford 
 and Gillespie. They gloried in acknowledging the 
 Headship. They abhorred Erastianism. They w^ould 
 submit to no invasion of the spiritual jurisdiction. 
 They suffered in the cause, "esteeming the reproach 
 of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt." 
 But neither did they confound the jurisdictions. While 
 they maintained inviolate the Church's rights and 
 liberties, they taught as unequivocally that it was the 
 
AARON'S ROD. 101 
 
 right and duty of the State not only to repel invasions 
 on the civil province, but to take order that, even 
 within her own province, the Church should do her 
 duty, and, if necessary, to compel her to do so by civil 
 penalties. 
 
 We need adduce no quotations to prove the former ; 
 a very few only will be necessary to demonstrate the 
 latter. 
 
 In the first place, let us hear Gillespie on the doc- 
 trine in question : — 
 
 " As Church officers, they are to be kept within the 
 limits of their calling, and compelled (if need be) by 
 the magistrate to do those duties w^hich, by the clear 
 Word of God, and received principles of Christian reli- 
 gionj or hy the received ecclesiastical constitutions of that 
 Churchy they ought to dor * 
 
 " 'Tis far from my meaning that the Christian magis- 
 trate should not meddle with matters of religion, or 
 things or causes ecclesiastical, and that he is to take 
 care of the commonwealth, but not of the Church ; 
 certainly there is much power and authority which, by 
 the Word of God, and by the Confessions of Faith of 
 the Reformed Churches, doth belong to the Christian 
 magistrate in matters of religion." f 
 
 " The mamstrate hath indeed an authoritative influ- 
 ence into matters of religion and Church government, 
 but it is cumulative ; that is, the magistrate takes care 
 that Church officers, as well as other subjects, may do 
 those things which, ex officio^ they are bound to do ; 
 
 » Aaron's Rod, p. 176. f Ibid., p. 181. 
 
102 SAMUEL RUTHERFORD. 
 
 and where they do so, he aideth, assisteth, strengtheneth, 
 ratifieth, and, in his way, maketh effectual what they 
 do." * 
 
 Let us now hear the learned and pious Rutherford: — 
 
 " We never denied that the magistrate commandeth 
 both the exercise of the Church-power simply, and the 
 manner and such qualifications as are external and 
 obvious to the knowledge of the magistrate^ f 
 
 " The magistrate's power in spiritual things, to judge 
 and punish, is formaliter, and in itself, and intrinsically, 
 civill ; but objective in regard of the object, and extrin- 
 sically, it is spiritual." % 
 
 " The magistrate judgeth as a magistrate, not in a 
 pastoral way, or ecclesiastical ; for then, by office, he 
 should be a preacher of the Gospel ; but civilly, as they 
 are agreeable or contrary to the laivs of the commomvealth 
 made concerning religion, and in order to the civill 
 praise and reward of stipends, wages, or benefices, or 
 to the bodily punishment inflicted by the sword. So 
 that, though the object be spiritual!, yet the judging is 
 civill, and the magistrate's power, in setting up true or 
 pulling dowme false ordinances, is objectively spiritual. 
 . . . . But the same power of the magistrate is 
 formally essentially in itself civill, and of this world." § 
 
 In his " Due Right of Presbyteries, or a Peaceable 
 Plea for the Government of the Church of Scotland," 
 Rutherford discusses at length "the power of the prince 
 in matters ecclesiastical." He refutes at once the 
 
 • Aaron's Rod, p. 2G5. Vide Book II., chapters iii. and viii. 
 t Divine Right, p. 548. X II^^m P- t>22. § Ibid., p. 678. 
 
RUTHERFORD. 103 
 
 Popish and the Erastian views. He shews " the intrin- 
 sical end of the magistrate to be a supernatural good ;" 
 " how the magistrate is subordinate to Christ's media- 
 torial kingdom ;" " that the ordinary power of the 
 magistrate is not to make Church laws;" "that the 
 government of the Church is spiritual, and not a formal 
 part of the magistrate's office." 
 
 Even in the discussion of these topics, the simple 
 enunciation of which indicates the author's anti-Eras- 
 tian views, such passages as the following again and 
 again occur, in examining the question : — 
 
 Whether his opponents do " with good reason impute 
 to the Church government of the Reformed Churches 
 the eversion of the civill magistrate's power in matters 
 ecclesiastical." 
 
 " A power external about Church matters, which is 
 objective, in respect of the object, sacred or ecclesias- 
 tick, but improperly, and by a figure only ecclesiastick, 
 and essentially and in itself politick, such we hold to 
 be the magistrate's power in causing Churchmen doe 
 their duty in preaching sound doctrine, and administering 
 the sacraments,^* &c. 
 
 " The king's power, as king, in things ecclesiastic, is 
 not servile and merely executive, as the Church's servant, 
 to put their decrees in execution, but it is regall, 
 princely, and supreme^ 
 
 " This good which the magistrate, as the magistrate, 
 procureth, is not only a naturall happiness, and the 
 quiet life of a civill society, but also the good and well- 
 doing of Christians as Christians — to wit, publick 
 
104 RUTHEKFORD. 
 
 praying, preaching, hearing of the Word, religious 
 administration, and receiving of the sacraments — all 
 which the king, as king, is to procure ; for whatever 
 good externall, pastors, as pastors, do procure, that 
 same also, but in a civill and co-active way, is the 
 king, as the king, to procure, and therefore his end as 
 king is godlinesse and eternal life; but he is busied 
 about this end, after a far other and more carnall way 
 than the pastor, the weapons of whose warfare are not 
 carnall." 
 
 " Yea (I say from the Word of God), that externall 
 peace is too narrow an end, and it doth belong to the 
 second table, and the king's end as nurse-father; and 
 his alike care is to preserve the first table, and, as a 
 nurse-father, to see that the children's milke be good 
 and wholesome, though the milke come not from his 
 own breasts ; and so his power hath a kingly relation 
 to all the Word of God, and not to externall peace 
 and naturall happinesse only." 
 
 " The kingly power maketh not the ecclesiastick 
 power, but it setteth it on work, in a co-active way, for 
 the edifying of Christ's body, and doth causitively 
 edify." " He may command by the power of the sword 
 spirituall acts of preaching ; administering of the sacra- 
 ments purely ; of defining necessary truths in Synods, 
 and forbid the contrary ; but he cannot formally him- 
 self exercise these acts." " The king hath no power, 
 formally and intrinsically, ecclesiastical, over either the 
 Church, or any member of the Church, but the Church's 
 power is supreme, under Christ, the King and Head of 
 
RUTHERFORD. 105 
 
 the Church." Yet his power " may be thought divine 
 and ecclesiasticall, objectively, the end being a spiritual 
 good ; and so the king hath power to convene Synods, 
 . and, as king, may command the minister of the 
 Gospell, both as a man, yea, and as a preacher in the 
 pulpit, to preach sound doctiine, and to give wholesome 
 and good milk to the Church^ 
 
 I shall give only one extract more : — 
 
 " The magistrate, as magistrate and a preserver of 
 publick peace, may do something, where a schisme and 
 dissention is among the Churchmen in a Synod. In 
 this case he may punish perturbers of the peace. . . . 
 Where there is an equal rupture of the body, nothing 
 extraordinary would be attempted, if ordinary ways 
 can be had. . . . But if that cannot be conve- 
 niently had, as in a nationall Church it may fall out, 
 then the magistrate, as a preserver of peace and truth, 
 may command the sincerer part to convene in a Synod, 
 and doe their duty, as the good kings of the people of God 
 did; . . . which proveth that the king should put 
 the sincerest to do that which in common belongeth to 
 the whole; in which case of the erring of the most 
 part of the Church, the prince indirectly condemneth 
 the erring part of the Synod, because it is his place to 
 forbid and punish with the sword the transgressors of 
 God's law." 
 
 These extracts, which, if necessary, might be multi- 
 plied indefinitely, are sufficient to indicate the views of 
 the framers of our Church's standards, and to shew 
 how widely different they are from those of the modern 
 
106 magistrate's power in sacred things 
 
 school. Many passages, indeed, might be quoted, to 
 shew how resolutely they contended for the sole Head- 
 ship of Christ Jesus, and for the true liberty of His 
 Church. Such passages have often been quoted, with 
 the view of shewing that the Church has abandoned 
 her ancient claims. It is asserted that she has become 
 the tool and slave of the State, ready to shape her act- 
 ings according to the capricious intimations of State 
 dictation. The charge is without foundation. The 
 claims which the Church of old preferred are the very 
 claims which we maintain ; the rights for which she 
 contended are the very rights which we profess, and 
 which we will not abandon. But we acknowledge a 
 difference between liberty and licentiousness — between 
 full liberty to act according to our constitution, and 
 liberty to alter that constitution, and trample on the 
 rights of others. Very futile is it to quote, as if against 
 us, passages which assert the separation of the jurisdic- 
 tions — the power of the Church within her own pro- 
 vince — the maintenance of the sole Headship of our 
 blessed Lord. We admit them ; we adopt them all. 
 These are our very sentiments, and he who asserts 
 otherwise, taketh up an evil report against his brethren, 
 and " ascriveth false positiouns " to the Church of 
 Scotland. 
 
 From the preceding quotations, from the acknow- 
 ledged standards of the Church of Scotland, and from 
 the writings of those fathers and reformers on whom 
 the task of drawing these standards from the oracles of 
 God was imposed, we learn the nature and extent of 
 
NOT DISCRETION AH Y. 107 
 
 that power in sacred things which, by the constitution 
 of the Church, is ascribed to the civil magistrate. 
 
 The magistrate may not himself perform any spiritual 
 acts, but he may interfere to the extent of even com- 
 pelling churchmen to do their duty. But is not this, it 
 may be said, a virtual subjection of the rulers of the 
 Church to the magistrate's discretionary power — a 
 placing of the Church, as a slave, at the feet of the 
 State ? 
 
 Unquestionably, if the Church were held bound to 
 yield implicit obedience to whatever the magistrate 
 might choose to dictate, she would be degraded to the 
 position of a slave. The Church which should come 
 under such an obligation would have denied her only 
 Head. It was against this very subjugation that our 
 fathers contended, even unto death. They resisted 
 that claim of supremacy which successive monarchs set 
 up, in virtue of which they would have altered at will 
 the constitution and form of government — imposing a 
 liturgy — substituting Episcopacy for the Presbyterian 
 form — and demanding arbitrary authority to decide all 
 causes, both civil and ecclesiastical. The claim was 
 for "jurisdiction and obedience in matters of doctrine 
 and discipline " — " the controversy w^as w^hether Jesus 
 Christ be King of His own Church, or if the leviathan 
 of the supremacy shall swallow up all, and rule accord- 
 ing to its own arbitriment without control." * To 
 have acknowledged this claim would indeed have been 
 
 * Livingston's Letter to his Parishioners, "Wodrow Biographies, voL i., 
 p. 249. 
 
108 MUCH IN A NAME. 
 
 to substitute another Head and Lawgiver in the place 
 of Christ. But can two things be more distinct the 
 one from the other, than a claim to make laws at will 
 for the Church of Christ, and a claim to see that the 
 laws which Christ has made shall not be violated ? 
 Our fathers refused the former, but acknowledged the 
 latter. The one they resisted, even unto blood — the 
 other they insisted upon as a duty which the magis- 
 trate might, in no case, decline. And yet has the 
 assertion in our days been made, and reiterated, and 
 received by multitudes, that the parties who reject the 
 very doctrine which our fathers held are walking in 
 their footsteps. By confounding these two different 
 things, men claim to be acknowledged as the successors 
 of our martyred sires, while they repudiate the very 
 doctrines for which our sires witnessed to the death. 
 They quote our fathers' contendings and protests against 
 the former, which they abhorred, and apply them to the 
 latter, which they maintained ; and thus have they 
 persuaded themselves that the cause which they uphold 
 is the cause which of old unfurled the banner of the 
 Covenant, and around that banner they would have all 
 men now to rally, for the purpose of resisting a claim 
 which at the first it was unfurled to defend. There is, 
 indeed, much in a name ; there may be a talismanic 
 influence even in a word ; and no men ever knew the 
 truth and value of this fact better than those who were 
 the instigators of the late secession. In their case and 
 in that of our fathers there was resistance to the powers 
 that be ; and that one circumstance — the one name of 
 
magistrate's power judicial. 109 
 
 resistance to the civil power — gave occasion to that claim 
 of identity in the two causes, which roused the enthu- 
 siasm of multitudes, although the difference between the 
 two amounted to nothinac less than the difference between 
 resistance to imlawful, and resistance to lawful authority 
 — between resistance to the assumption of arbitrary 
 power and to constitutional authority — nay, between re- 
 sistance to what was an attempt to assume the powers 
 of Christ and to trample on the liberties of His people, 
 and resistance to a principle, the effect of which was to 
 prevent the assumption of Christ's power, whether hy 
 churchmen or the State, and the subversion of the rights 
 and liberties of the people, secured to them by the 
 establishment of a creed and polity embodied in the 
 national code, and defended, along with every other 
 national right, by the interpretation of statute being 
 confided, in cases of dispute, not to the contending 
 parties, but to the sworn interpreters of the law. 
 
 The coercive power in sacred things conceded by our 
 fathers to the civil magistrate is essentially and solely 
 judicial. The magistrate may not act as a law^-maker, 
 but only as a law-interpreter. The Church prepared 
 her creed, she arranged her policy, and both she con- 
 fided to the protection of the civil ruler, that he might 
 preserve them inviolate, as solemnly agreed to and em- 
 bodied in the very constitution of the kingdom. He is 
 bound to preserve both her creed and her discipline at 
 once from innovation within and from invasion from 
 without. He has no discretionary power either as to 
 her doctrine or her forms. It was a claim to this that 
 
1 10 WHERE RIGHT OF CONTROL RESIDES. 
 
 our fathers resisted. In himself he has no control. 
 The control is in the laws — the laws which the Church 
 herself either framed or agreed to. The magistrate has 
 the right only to interpret and apply these laws. There 
 is no room for his interference, except in cases where 
 the Church's own laws are violated, or where ecclesi- 
 astical rulers refuse to do what ex officio they are bound 
 to do. The control which he exercises is, in fact, the 
 control of the Church herself — it is the control of the 
 Churches oivn standards — the control of the fathers of the 
 Church, through the civil authorities, who, though they 
 may not act in any spiritual capacity, yet may civilly 
 prevent departure from these standards, even though an 
 innovating majority should determine to subvert them. 
 The existence of this right of control implies no sub- 
 jection on the part of the rulers of the Church to the 
 law's interpreters. It is subjection to the laws them- 
 selves — subjection to those laws which, under God, are 
 the safeguards of the Church's freedom, and which 
 prevent the Headship of Christ and the liberties of 
 His people from being interfered with by those who, 
 for the time, may happen to exercise rule in the Church. 
 Substitute for this that unlimited spiritual independence 
 which some have contended for, and you have no 
 security for permanency either of doctrine or discipline : 
 the constitutional rights of the people are annihilated, 
 and can never amount to more than the will — it may 
 be conscientious will — of their rulers may concede ; 
 and what they concede to-day they may withdraw to- 
 morrow. 
 
TESTIMONY OF SUFFERERS UNDER CHARLES I. Ill 
 
 These, we have seen, are the views of the founders 
 and fathers of our Church. They were also the views 
 of those who, at a subsequent period of her history, 
 suffered in defence of her principles. We cannot mul- 
 tiply our proofs, — a very few extracts must suffice. 
 When, in the reign of Charles I., the office-bearers of 
 the Church violated its constitution by introducing the 
 Liturgy and ceremonies, those who adhered to her con- 
 stitution complained against these office-bearers to the 
 civil power ; and they did so in terms such as these : — 
 " The laws of God and man direct us, in case of injury, 
 in wrongs done to us, to seek redress by civil justice." 
 " Seeing no good patriot, of whatever affection to reli- 
 gion, can allow any novations brought in, without order 
 of law, to the disquieting of the kingdom, nor disallow 
 an orderly proceeding, by lawful complaints against such 
 unlawful courses." The sentiments of Livingston are 
 well known, yet not so well as they ought to be.* His 
 testimony few will venture to dispute. He was a 
 sufferer in maintaining the cause of the Headship of 
 King Jesus. Hear his testimony against the Erastian 
 usurpations of his day, in his letter to his beloved par- 
 ishioners of Ancrum, when permission even to visit them 
 before his banishment was sternly refused : — " Christ 
 
 * The testimony of " worthy, famous Mr. John Livingstone," as his con- 
 temporaries were wont to call him, is in all respects important and valuable. 
 He was a confessor in troublous times, a firm and consistent supporter of the 
 truth, and one highly honoured as a most successful labourer in the Lord's 
 vineyard. He was the instrument of producing " the celebrated revival of 
 religion " at the Kirk of Shotts in 1630. He was a member of the Glasgow 
 Assembly of 1638. John Livingston is truly characterised as " one of the 
 most revered names in Scottish ecclesiastical history." 
 
112 TESTIMONY OF LIVINGSTON. 
 
 was once owned as King of His Church in that land ; 
 that in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, 
 His laws in His Word should be the only rule ; and 
 hereunto all, from the highest to the lowest, had by 
 oath engaged themselves : now, abjured Prelacy is 
 brought in, Christ's faithful servants cast out, hirelings 
 thrust in His house, the whole disposing of Church 
 matters, persons, and meetings, by the Act of Suprem- 
 acy, referred to the sole arbitriment of a mortal 
 creature, and persecution bended against all who go 
 not along in that apostacie and perjury; and is not, 
 then, suffering endured in as important a quarrel as 
 ever was since the foundation of the world ? The 
 smallest point of Christ's prerogative royal is not only 
 worth the sufferings, but worth more than the eternal 
 salvation of all the elect." * 
 
 Such an one surely was not likely to emit Erastian 
 sentiments ; yet hear his testimony when examined 
 before the Council in 1662. 
 
 Being required to take the oath of allegiance, he re- 
 plies : — " My Lord, I do acknowledge the King's 
 Majesty (whose person and government I wish God to 
 bless) to be the only lawful supreme magistrate of this 
 and all other of his Majesty's dominions, and that his 
 Majesty is the supreme civil governor over all persons, 
 and in all causes, as well ecclesiastic as civil; but for 
 the oath as it stands in terms, I am not free to take it." 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — " I think you and we agree as to 
 the oath." 
 • Letter to his Parishioners, Select Biographies, Wood. Socy., vol. i., p. 242. 
 
NOTE TO CHAPTER V. 113 
 
 Lord Advocate. — " My Lord Chancellor, your Lord- 
 ship doth not observe that he useth a distinction, that 
 the king is the supreme civil governor, that he may 
 make way for the co-ordinate power of the Presby- 
 tery." 
 
 Mr, Livingstone. — "My Lord, I do indeed believe 
 and confess that Jesus Christ is the only Head of His 
 Church, and that He only hath power to appoint a 
 government and discipline for removing of offences in 
 His [own] house, which is not dependent upon civil 
 powers, and no ways wrongs civil powers. But withal, 
 I acknowledge his Majesty to have a cumulative power 
 and inspection in the house of God, for seeing both the 
 tables of the law keeped ; and that his Majesty hath all 
 the ordinary power that was in the kings of Israel and 
 Judah, and in the Christian emperors and kings, since 
 the primitive times, for reforming, according to the 
 Word, what is amiss." Again, " I have always been of 
 that judgment, and am, and will be, that his Majesty is 
 supreme governor, in a civil way, over all persons and 
 in all causes." * 
 
 NOTE TO CHAPTER Y. 
 
 Note A. 
 
 What would be said of the following statement by John David- 
 son in 1590? It occurs near the commeucemeut of his tract en- 
 titled " D. Bancroft's Rashness in Rayling against the Chui'ch of 
 Scotland," — one of the many replies called forth by Bancroft's ser- 
 
 * See Account of Examination and Sentence of Mr. John Livingston, 
 Select Biograpliies, vol. i., pp. 216-221. 
 
 H 
 
114 NOTE TO CHAPTER V. 
 
 mon in 1588. " He setteth himself against theyr persons, and 
 travaileth to bring them into extreme hatred with the supreme 
 magistrate, as men who by this, their new government (so it 
 pleaseth him to speak of it), intend no less matter than hie treason 
 and rebellion, by overthrowing her Majestie's authority in ecclesi- 
 asticall causes, and highly derogating thereby to her supremacie 
 in that case, to the apparent endangering of her person and state 
 in the end, except good order be taken with the matter in time : 
 than the which, what can be more odiously affirmed, and more 
 worthy of extreame punishment if it be true ? " — Miscellany oj 
 Woodrow Society^ pp. 505, 501. No one will suspect Davidson of 
 Erastianism. He was a sufferer in the Church's cause, and is uni- 
 formally regarded as one of the worthies of the olden times. Row 
 says, " Mr John Davidson was a verie zealous honest man, and, 
 indeed, a verie prophet of God." — History^ p. 461. Livingstone 
 bears similar testimony in his "Characteristics," Select Biographies^ 
 p. 296. James Melville, in his Diary, makes frequent and honom*- 
 able mention of him. 
 
 Before dismissing this part of our subject, it maybe satisfactory 
 to quote the views of Trn'retine, this celebrated divine having 
 been referred to as one whose authority is favourable to the views 
 which we are opposing. A careful examination will lead to an 
 opposite conclusion. Take the following proofs: — "De Politica 
 Ecclesiae Gubeniatione," Quasstio xxxiv. ix. " Non exercet minis- 
 terium verbi, qui ministrum in doctrina errantem, vel in vita de- 
 linquentem monet, corripit, et pertinacem aut scandalosum re- 
 movet. Non baptizat qui prohibet ne profanetur baptismus, qui 
 sancta sancte fieri curaty (" The magistrate takes order that the 
 holy things be becomingly performed.") x. " Licet magistratibus 
 non competat verbi pra?dicatio, licet tamen episcopos et pastores 
 officium suum negligentes vel aherrantes monere et arguere ; imo et 
 exorbitantes in ordinern. redigere^ et cavere ne ministerium corrum- 
 patur, et religio aliquid patiatur detrimenti." (" It is the right of 
 the magistrate to confine the clergy to their own proper province.") 
 xiv. " Omni diligentia providcre, ut quisqiie ministrorum officium 
 suum faciat^ confirmare dillgentes, excitare torpentes, et in eo 
 delinquentes secundum canoncs ecclesiasticos aut leges civiles ani- 
 madvertere. Efficere ut solennes formula? et constitutiones eccle- 
 siastical, qua3 doctrinam et regimen ecclesise definiunt secun- 
 dum scriptura) normam legitimo ordine sauciantur, et semel san- 
 
NOTE TO CHAPTER V. 115 
 
 cit<B illihat(B conserventur.^^ ("It belongs to the civil magistrate 
 to take order that every minister shall do his duty, and to punish 
 those who faO. to do so according to the ecclesiastical canons and 
 the civil laws. It is his duty to provide that the formula and 
 constitutions of the Church, which define her doctrine and disci- 
 pline, be lawfully established, and when established, to take care 
 that they be preserved inviolate.") — Opera Theologica^ tom. iii., 
 pp. 356-60. It is strange that the venerable and beloved Chalmers 
 should, in vindication of his views, when referring to the " author- 
 ship of other days," have specified Turretine. But, indeed, it is not 
 more strange than that he should have mentioned any one of the 
 authors to whom he alludes. What would the venerable TuiTCtine 
 have said to Dr. Buchanan's remark about the Church's fi-eedom 
 to " adjust her creed and her administration ? " '■'• Et semel sancitcR 
 illibatcB conserventurJ'^ 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Extreme Views on the subject of Spiritual Independence lead to Tyranny — 
 Illustrated by reference to the History of the Church of Scotland, espe- 
 cially in her Golden Periods — Period succeeding Reformation from 
 Popery — Church Assumed Position now occupied by the Public Press — 
 Claims right of judging, in the first instance, in cases of Alleged Seditious 
 Teaching — Makes other Extravagant and Dangerous Claims inconsistent 
 with her own Reformation Principles. 
 
 Having thus ascertained the calm and deliberate opi- 
 nions entertained by our fathers on the doctrine of 
 Spiritual Independence, and observed how essentially 
 they differ from those of the modern school, proceed we 
 now to verify our allegation of a tendency on the part 
 of the Church rulers to overstep their legitimate and ac- 
 knowledged bounds, and to assume those views which, 
 as we have already said, tend to the subversion both 
 of civil and religious liberty. 
 
 Called, as in the providence of God our fathers fre- 
 quently were, to oppose the encroachments of arbitrary 
 power, they sometimes overlooked the essential princi- 
 ples on which was founded their own protest against 
 that spiritual domination which, for ages, had fettered 
 the energies of Christendom, and indicated a tendency 
 to foster that very doctrine which the champions of 
 Kome had employed as their most effective weapon of 
 defence against the Protestant lieformation. It was 
 
TENDENCY TO POPISH ASSUMPTIONS. 117 
 
 well for the cause of freedom that they firmly withstood 
 the unconstitutional encroachments of the Stuart dy- 
 nasty ; but perhaps it was also well for the cause of 
 freedom that their own deviations, in another direction, 
 were not less successfully checked. In their jealousy 
 of regal tyranny, they were sometimes betrayed not 
 only into the use of expressions insulting and irritat- 
 ing to the ears of royalty, and fitted, if not repressed, 
 to bring the throne itself into contempt, but also to put 
 forth claims which, if yielded, would have rendered such 
 repression impossible, and would have invested the 
 Presbyterian Church with a power even over the sove- 
 reign, as despotic as had ever been conceded to the 
 Italian priest. In violation to their own principles, they 
 did occasionally claim what really was practically equi- 
 valent to that exclusive right of interpreting Scripture, 
 and of authoritatively declaring the mind of Christ, 
 which formerly had been the boast, and, so far as ad- 
 mitted, the impregnable stronghold of the Popish 
 Church. While their real and avowed principles were, 
 that men should receive their determinations only in 
 so far as they could convince them of their scriptural 
 authority, they did occasionally insist that to their in- 
 terpretations, as authoritative, it w^as the duty of all im- 
 plicitly to yield. To the assumption of this claim on 
 their part, a decided and growing tendency can be 
 traced. They repudiated the claim of infallibility, but 
 they yet demanded unlimited power, not only of autho- 
 ritative interpretation of Scripture doctrine, but of au- 
 thoritative application of Scripture cases ; and they con- 
 
118 LIBERTIES IN THE PULPIT. 
 
 siderecl the liberties of the Church as sacrilegiously vio- 
 lated if any attempt was made to restrain either their 
 invectives, whether against ruler or subject, or their bold 
 comments on all the measures of the legislature and 
 executive, and on all the political occurrences of the 
 times. 
 
 What has since been denominated the Fourth Estate 
 of the empire had not yet been developed, but its func- 
 tions were assumed by the clergy, and discharged with 
 a boldness which that dominant estate has never yet 
 surpassed. The fulminations of the pulpit in these 
 days were as fearless as those of the press in ours ; and 
 the effects of them were increased tenfold by the fact, 
 that the denunciations of the watchmen on the towers 
 of Zion were given forth and received as the denuncia- 
 tions of Heaven. It is not diflScult to conceive the re- 
 sults of such a system, if unchecked — to conceive the 
 effects upon the minds of unlettered and semi-barbarous 
 men, or to account for the anxiety of the ruler to pos- 
 sess as much control as would enable him at once to 
 suppress what was considered seditious or treasonable 
 speech, or such bitter invectives as were fitted to excite 
 the ignorant multitude, and to bring into contempt " the 
 ordinance of God for good." 
 
 The attempt at such control was resisted as a daring 
 attempt to intrude on sacred things. It was not for 
 the pulpit only that exemption was claimed from all 
 control, on the ground that the Church alone could 
 judge of doctrine, in prima instantia. The watchmen 
 repudiated the idea of special sacrcdness attached to the 
 
DANGEROUS CLAIMS. 119 
 
 place in which they taught, and claimed the right of 
 teaching when and how they deemed expedient, uncon- 
 trolled by any authority save of the Church courts. 
 The State might consider the teaching treasonable, but 
 as it was the teachino; of one whom the Church had au- 
 thorised to interpret and apply Scripture — of one whose 
 authority was derived from the great Head of the 
 Church — the Church alone could judge in the matter, 
 at least in the first instance ; ^. 6., the Church courts 
 were to determine whether the teaching were treason- 
 able or not. If they determined that treason had been 
 spoken, then the civil authority might interfere. If 
 they determined that the teaching did not imply trea- 
 son, the matter was at an end. Majesty itself might, in 
 that case, wince under the denunciations which had 
 been hurled ao^ainst it. It mio-ht feel dishonoured and 
 humiliated in the nation's eyes. It might see its autho- 
 rity spurned, and the dark spirit of gloomy disaffection 
 gathering, and increasing, and spreading around. But 
 there was no redress. The matter had been determined. 
 The evil must be tolerated, be the consequences what 
 they might, unless the sovereign would incur the guilt 
 of Uzziah's fatal sin, and brave the consequences of the 
 Almighty's wrath. 
 
 It was fortunate, indeed, that, in these circumstances, 
 their opposition was directed against a power claiming 
 to rule at will. The opposition was salutary, though 
 the principle on which it was maintained was danger- 
 ous. The opposition benefited the cause of liberty, al- 
 though the principle on w^hich they defended it was 
 
120 POWER OF PULPIT. 
 
 equally subversive of true freedom. It was well that 
 the graspings of regal authority should be repressed, 
 though it was not well that the repressing power should 
 itself be suffered to be triumphant. It was a power 
 which, from its very nature, could not be satisfied with 
 the exercise of a merely salutary control : it must be 
 dominant. And most unquestionably the liberty of the 
 subject could not have long survived the triumph of the 
 power to which the authority of the sovereign had been 
 forced to succumb. Nay, it was only an accidental cir- 
 cumstance that it happened to be brought into conflict 
 with monarchical tyranny ; it was in itself equally ready 
 to combat with popular freedom. It resisted interfer- 
 ence alike from people and from prince. 
 
 It is not necessary to adduce instances of daring 
 attacks, made from the pulpit, on the character and 
 conduct of the monarch who happened to occupy the 
 throne. It was not a merely occasional practice ; it 
 was rather the habitual system. To the pulpit every 
 grievance was carried, and there dilated on in the 
 hearing of all. The king was insulted to his face.* 
 When he entered the house of God to worship Him by 
 
 * "The other part maketh mention of the treasonable, seditious, and 
 contumelious speeches, uttered by some of your calling in pulpit against 
 me and my progenitors. This part, likewise, cannot weill be denyed, 
 since it is more than evident, that it hath been the most part of some 
 ministers' exercise these four or five years past." — King's Declaration^ &c., 
 1584, Calderwood, vol. iv., p. 459. Vide also vol. v., pp. 129, 130; also 
 p. 493, where admission is made of the injurious consequences which had 
 resulted " from the libertie of admonitions which are at divers times given 
 to his IMajesty and counsell, from the pulpit, in public audience of the 
 people, . . . tending to the contoinpt and disgrace of his Majestie's 
 authority and person with his subjects," &c., &.c. 
 
UNSEEMLY ATTACKS. 121 
 
 whom kings reign, he was compelled to listen to un- 
 sparing rebukes administered both in sermon and in 
 prayer. He was pilloried in presence of his nobles and 
 assembled subjects. The royal seat was converted into 
 the seat of public penance, from which he was forced 
 to listen to indecent and harrowing allusions to the 
 character of his murdered mother, and to the memory 
 of his ancestors in past generations, to whose defections 
 and to his own was traced a goodly portion of all the 
 evils with which, as judgments, the kingdom had been 
 visited; and he was ofttimes warned, by allusion to 
 certain ungodly kings of Israel, and to their fate, that, 
 but for timely repentance, his race would terminate 
 with himself, and he would leave his throne to 
 strangers. 
 
 These extravagances may be, and have been, de- 
 fended, as instances of noble courage and bold fidelity, 
 and their grossness may be ascribed to the character of 
 of the times. But palliate them as we may, they were 
 unbecoming, insulting, irritating, dangerous, and could 
 not fail to prejudice the mind of James against that 
 system which seemed not only to tolerate but to uphold 
 them, and against the men who not only used these 
 weapons of attack, but denounced as supremely impious 
 every attempt to control them. Who can tell how much 
 of the opposition and persecution which Presbyter- 
 ianism was destined to encounter, may not be attribut- 
 able to this source ? 
 
 It is true that the men who indulged in these 
 unseemly attacks were, many of them, men of God. 
 
122 BRING king's AUTHORITT INTO CONTEMPT. 
 
 They seem to have been really attached to the king's 
 person, and most anxious both for his temporal and 
 spiritual welfare. They acted, in many ceses, it cannot 
 be doubted, from motives of the purest kind. They 
 believed themselves fully warranted, by the examples 
 of ancient prophets, in the denunciations which they 
 had been commanded to utter against erring and re- 
 bellious kings. But their conduct is not defensible. 
 It was not merely irreverent, but eminently perilous. 
 No government could have tolerated it. " It tended to 
 the contempt and disgrace of his Majesty's authority 
 and person with his subjects." It could serve no other 
 purpose. And when we meet with such statements as 
 the following, which we do repeatedly, " The doctrine 
 sounded powerfully, and stirred up a mightie motioun 
 amongst the people of God, to detest the wicked pro- 
 ceedings, and call earnestly to God for redress,"* we 
 are quite prepared for those scenes of disaffection and 
 tumult which so frequently occurred ; and we wonder 
 the more at the pertinacity of these public attacks 
 when we find his Majesty, while he implored them on 
 public grounds not to bring his person into contempt 
 and endanger his authority by their pulpit denuncia- 
 tions, inviting them again and again to remonstrate 
 with him in private, and to confer with him on what- 
 ever they might suppose to be blameworthy in his 
 conduct. In the Assembly 1596, we find James thus 
 expressing himself: "As for the other heed, the king 
 granted he was a sinner, as other men were, but not 
 
 • Calderwood, vol. v , p. 600. 
 
REFUSE CONTROL. 123 
 
 infected, he trusted, with anie grosse sinne, and there- 
 fore required that no preacher would inveygh against 
 him or his counsell pubHcklie, but to come to him or 
 them privilie, and tell what is the offence ; and, as for 
 himself, if he mended not, in case he were guiltie, they 
 might deal publicly : his chamber door sould be made 
 patent to the meanest minister in Scotland : there 
 sould not be anie mean gentleman in Scotland more 
 subject to the good order and discipline of the Ku'k 
 than he would be."* 
 
 When strong measures were resorted to by the court 
 to repress the unseemly violence of the pulpit, and to 
 punish seditious speeches uttered in that sacred place, 
 the Church, alarmed at what was considered an invasion 
 of her liberties, put herself into an attitude of defence. 
 The contest may be considered as having commenced 
 with Andrew Melville's declinature of the jurisdiction 
 of the council as incompetent. That Melville really 
 had been guilty of the charges brought against him, no 
 proof can be adduced ; though that he may have given 
 utterance to rash and unguarded speeches, his well- 
 known character renders not at all improbable. The 
 charge, however, was virtually departed from. It was 
 on the ground of his declinature alone that sentence 
 was pronounced against him. The proceeding was 
 most arbitrary. The conduct of Melville was bold, 
 uncompromising, patriotic. He had reasons of declina- 
 ture unanswerable ; but he added this, " that all minis- 
 ters should first be judged for any offence with which 
 
 * Calderwood, vol. v., p. 397. 
 
124 PLEA SUBVERSIVE OF CIVIL AUTHORITY. 
 
 they were charged, in the exercise of their duties, by 
 their brethren in the ministry." 
 
 This was the chief point in the case. This was the 
 claim which, if conceded, would have invested ministers 
 with unlimited power of invective, nay, and put into 
 their hands a weapon for undermining at will all auth- 
 ority but their own. It was a claim, as Dr. Cook 
 observes, " inconsistent with the fundamental maxims 
 which should regulate criminal procedure." * " This 
 exemption," says Robertson, " from civil jurisdiction 
 was a privilege which the Popish ecclesiastics — admir- 
 able judges of whatever contributed to increase the 
 lustre or power of their body — had long struggled for, 
 and had at last obtained. If the same plea had now 
 been admitted, the Protestant clergy would have become 
 independent of the civil magistrate, . . . and might 
 have become no less pernicious, by teaching, without 
 fear or control, the most dangerous principles, or by 
 exciting their hearers to the most desperate and law- 
 less actions." f " In the present day," says another 
 historian, not likely to depreciate the Church's legiti- 
 mate claims, " when there are other methods of oppos- 
 ing the encroachments of power, and when the jurisdic- 
 tion of the several courts is better defined, the claim of 
 hearing, even in the first instance, charges of sedition 
 or treason, or any civil offence committed by their 
 members, would never be listened to." J 
 
 * Hist., vol. i., p. 378. Dr. M'Crie, in his Life of Melville, has attempted, 
 but without success, to defend this claim. Vide Note A. 
 f History of Scotland, book vi. 
 X Buchanan's History of Scotland, by Aikman, vol. iii. p. 79. 
 
EXTRAVAGANT CLAIM. 125 
 
 The claim, however, continued to be maintained, and 
 was afterwards, indeed, put forth in a yet more offen- 
 sive form. As the Church's difficulties increased, her 
 opposition became more determined, and her demands 
 more exclusive and grasping. Let us listen to some of 
 her authoritative statements in connexion with the 
 famous case of Black. 
 
 In the declinature of Black occur such expressions as 
 the following : — " Christ Jesus, only King and only 
 Head over His Kirk, ... by whom are appointed 
 all spiritual offices and functions ; by whom are given 
 to the Kirk, and effectually called, all spiritual office- 
 bearers and ministers; to whom he has concredited 
 the preaching of the Evangell ; whom he has placed in 
 their spiritual ministry over kings and kingdoms, to plant 
 and pluck up by the roots, to edijie and demolish, to cast 
 down strongholds, and whatsomever lifteth itself up against 
 the knowledge of GodV * Compare w^ith this the state- 
 ment of Mr. Robert Pont, in 1591, in the conference 
 betwixt the king and the Presbytery of Edinburgh — 
 "There is a judgment above yours," said Mr. Robert 
 Pont, *•' and that is God's, put in the hands of the minis- 
 trier^ Compare it also w^ith the following reasons 
 " why none of the ministrie can subscribe the Band 
 ordained by his Majestic." 
 
 By this Band they were to acknowledge the king's 
 judgment in all causes civil or criminal, and not to 
 
 * Second Declinature in name of the whole Ministrie of Scotland, Cal- 
 derwood, vol. v., p. 278. 
 t Ibid., p. 131. 
 
126 POPISH ASSUMPTIONS. 
 
 decline his authority in cases of alleged sedition as 
 uttered in the pulpit. Some of these reasons, founded 
 on civil grounds, are not to be disputed, but are worthy 
 of men protesting against the assumption of despotic 
 power. But listen to the following against the king's 
 authority in matters civil and criminal. 
 
 " CiviLL. — The Word of God prescribeth the duties 
 civill of princes, people, fathers, children, husbands, 
 wives, maisters, servants, &c. The which must be 
 taught and preached, and so judged hy the Kirk and 
 prophets^ 
 
 " Criminal. — A perfect judicatour handleth three 
 questions — An factum'^ Quale factum'! Quid niereatur? 
 Now heresie, idolatry, witchecraft, and such like, de- 
 serve death by all laws, and so are criminall. And 
 yett, the Kirk must judge all the three questions by the 
 Word of God, and not the king, whose part is but to 
 executed 
 
 "Pulpits shall be no pretence. — This is calum- 
 nious, as though we acclaimed a priviledge to the place, 
 and not a right and authority to the message and com- 
 missiounr * 
 
 Compare with all this the following answers given in 
 1597 to the king's questions, by the Synod of Fife, 
 answers to which we have already had occasion to 
 refer : — 
 
 Question 29. " May anything be acted in the Assem- 
 bly to which his Majestic conscnteth not?" Answer. 
 " The king should consent to, and by his lawes approve, 
 
 * Calderwood, vol. v., p. 52G. 
 
POPISH ASSUMPTIONS. 127 
 
 all that by the Word of God's majestie is concluded in 
 his Assemblies; but the acts thereof have sufficient 
 authoritie from Christ, who has promised, that what- 
 soever two or three convened in His name sail agree 
 upon in earth, to be ratified in the heavens ; the like 
 whereof no king nor prince has. And so the acts and 
 constitutions of the Kirk are of greater authoritie nor 
 anie earthlie king can give ; yea, even such as should 
 command and overrule kings, whose greatest honour is 
 to be members, nourish-fathers, and servants of the 
 King, Jesus Christ, and His Spouse and Queene, the 
 Kirk." * 
 
 We might load our pages with extracts, indicating 
 the progress which a few years had made in the claims 
 advanced by the Church, and proving that even thus 
 early there was a marked departure from the original 
 principles of the Reformation. Some of the demands 
 now boldly made are in direct contrast with the senti- 
 ments at first entertained by the Eeformers, and em- 
 bodied in the acknowledged standards of the Church. 
 According to the opinions declared in some of the pre- 
 ceding quotations, is there any conceivable thing which 
 the spiritual jurisdiction was not ample enough to 
 embrace ? Over what farther limits did the Popedom 
 extend its jurisdiction? Did it — could it — claim a 
 higher authority than that "all its conclusions, resolu- 
 lutions, and determinations in matters ecclesiastical, and 
 appertaining to conscience, are of suche sort that what- 
 ever they bind or loose on the earth, according to the 
 
 * Calderwood, vol. v., p. 591. 
 
128 TYRAimiCAL ACT OF ASSEMBLY 1593. 
 
 Word of God, is bound or loosed likewise in the 
 heavens." * Did Popery ever assign a more abject 
 position to the civil power? "The Kirk must judge 
 all these questions, and not the king, whose part is but 
 to execute." Had these principles triumphed, alas for 
 civil authority in the ruler — alas for even the shadow 
 of true liberty in the subject ! 
 
 In order to prevent, as far as possible, any approach 
 by which the civil power might reach the persons of 
 ecclesiastics, or have any pretence to intermeddle even 
 in the civil affairs of churchmen, the Assembly 1593 
 passed the following act, to which, for tyrannical 
 assumption, it would be difficult anywhere to find a 
 parallel : — '^ It is enacted, when any controversie falls 
 out among brethren, even though the matter be civill, 
 that if they be both in one Presbyterie, they shall, 
 out of that Presbyterie, choice each of them so many 
 brethren, with an oversman ; and, if they be in sundrie 
 Presbyteries, each shall choose so many out of his awin 
 Presbyterie, with an oversman, and those judges arbi- 
 trators shall have the mater submitted to them sim- 
 pliciter ; and they shall decreet in the mater, and fra 
 their sentence shall he no appellation; and he who re- 
 fuses to submit shall he holden contumaxj and be de- 
 prived" t 
 
 In 1591 the Assembly had claimed jurisdiction in 
 cases of slander. " My Lord Ilaliroodhouse, a Lord of 
 Session, had called Mr. Patrick Simson a suborner; the 
 Assembly had charged my Lord Ilaliroodhouse before 
 
 • Calderwood, vol. iv., p. 291. f Row's Ch. Hist, p. 153. 
 
GKASPING AT POWEK. 129 
 
 them to purge out the slander ; my Lord Blantyre and 
 Culrosse, Lords of Session, appear in name of the Col- 
 ledge of Justice, protesting against the Assemblie as 
 medlinof with that which was civill ; but the Assemblie 
 judged the purging out of a slander to be a cause eccle- 
 siastic." * 
 
 I deem it unnecessary to adduce further confirma- 
 tions of the allegations which I have ventured to make 
 respecting the period at present under review. The 
 reader will at once perceive a marked departure from 
 the original Reformation principles — a grasping after 
 authority on the part of churchmen — a tendency to sub- 
 ject everything to Church-control — the buddings of a 
 little horn not disinclined to speak great things. I 
 might refer to the barbarity of the period f — to the 
 cruelty exercised to persons under the ban of the 
 
 * Row's Historj'-, p. 142. " The Lords of Session desired the Assemblie 
 not to proceed to judge in that cause, seeing it was civill, and proper to their 
 cognition, till it took an end before them. ... It was answered they 
 would not prejudge in any civil mater, nor derogat from their priviledges; 
 but the purging the members of their own bodie was amater ecclesiastic^ where- 
 in they might judge, without prejudice to any civil judicatorie." — Calder- 
 wood, vol. v., p. 134. This smells of Popery. Churchmen must judge 
 churchmen. But they did not confine themselves to the purging of eccle- 
 siastics, in cases of slander, nor, indeed, of any civil offences. In reply to 
 the question, "Sould the Presbyteries be judges of all things that import 
 slander; and if so be, whereof are they not judges V They answer, "The 
 Presbyteries should preasse to purge their bounds from all slander, and se- 
 perat everie soul from their slanderous known sinne, least it slay him, and 
 his blood be craved at their hands. And as Martyr sayes, ^ }\ildl est quod 
 Deiverbum se non extendat^ ac proinde, censures ecclesiastica;.^ " — Ibid., p. 593 
 No wonder that they found themselves not bound " to give an extract in 
 writt always to parties having interest." — Ibid., p. 594. 
 
 f Assembly 1588 ordained that " Poore beggars should get no alms (which 
 should be employed on the household of faith), except they shew testimonial 
 of baptisme," &c. — Eow, p. 137. 
 
 I 
 
130 TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER HUME. 
 
 Church * — to the admitted prevalence of gross immora- 
 lity, among all classes, and to an alarming extent f — to 
 acknowledgments of interference with matters purely 
 civil ; but I forbear. Enough if we have observed the 
 dangerous tendency, if not of clerical ambition, though 
 co-existing with many noble qualities, at least of claims 
 put forth under the guise of spiritual independence, 
 and under the belief that these claims are needful to the 
 maintenance of the crown rights of the Eedeemer. 
 AVe conclude with these words of " Mr. Alexander 
 Hoome, minister at Logic, near Stirlin," in his " Afold 
 Admonitioun to the Ministrie of Scotland in 1609": — 
 " Alace, brethrene, this maketh gude men to muse, 
 quhidder it wer better to haif a goode manifest byshope 
 in a Presbytrie, or to haif divers in effect, refusing the 
 name, pretending paritie, bot observing none. No ques- 
 tion the grace and glorie of our ministrie, of our Pres- 
 byteries and Assemblies, is notablie decayed ; and farr 
 is all declined from that measour of perfection quhilk it 
 haid, sone after the beginning of Reformatioun." if 
 
 * Row, p. 96, &c. "James Montgommery is ordainod to make public 
 repentence for speaking with ]\Ir. Robert !Montgomrie, excommunicat, and to 
 promise amendment in tyme coming." — Row, p. 99. 
 
 t Row, pp. 172, 173. Many among iis are accustomed to consider the 
 times in which we live, as times of unprecedented wickedness. Let them 
 read, as here referred to, the enumeration of " The Commone Corruptions of 
 all Estates within this Land," 1596. The perusal ought to excite their grati- 
 tude. 
 
 \ Ane Afold Admonitioun to the Ministrie of Scotland by a Deing Bro- 
 ther, 1609. Vide Note B. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Tendency of Extreme Views on the subject of Spiritual Independence — Il- 
 lustrated by reference to the History of the Church of Scotland — Period 
 succeeding the Second Eeformation — Struggle between Despotism and 
 Liberty — Early Covenanters nobly maintain the principles of Liberty in 
 opposition to Tyranny — Yet themselves oppose true Freedom — Compel 
 Adherence to League and Covenant — Assembly denounces all who should 
 venture to speak against any of their Acts — Subjects them both to Ec- 
 clesiastical and Civil Penalties — Assumes Eight of Control over the Public 
 Press — Assumes Civil and Political Power. 
 
 We now proceed to the period of, and that immediately 
 succeeding, the Second Reformation. 
 
 That Reformation was, to a great extent, effected 
 through the instrumentality of the famous Glasgow 
 Assembly of 1638. It is not necessary here to detail 
 those attempts of Charles I. to subvert the liberties of 
 the nation, and to subject to his own royal supremacy 
 every constitutional right, civil and religious, which 
 called forth the bold and systematic opposition that at 
 length found expression in the National Covenant of 
 1638. The struggle, at this period, was between des- 
 potism and liberty — a struggle maintained on the one 
 hand by a prince whose hereditary doctrines of the 
 sovereign's prerogative were incompatible with the en- 
 joyment of liberty by the subject, and who was betrayed 
 by the misrepresentations of unprincipled men, and 
 swayed by the sinister influence of a fanatical priest ; 
 
132 STRUGGLES OF EARLY COVENANTERS. 
 
 and on the other, by men who, though, at this stage at 
 least, loyally attached to the person of their king, were 
 yet determined at every hazard to defend their rights, 
 and to repel those encroachments of tyranny which, if 
 unresisted, would have reduced the nation to slavery. 
 
 Charles's hereditary antipathy to Presbyterianism 
 was increased, no doubt, by the recollection of the 
 struggles of the former reign, during which, it is not to 
 be denied, that claims had sometimes been preferred, on 
 on the part of the Church, fitted to excite the prejudices 
 of a monarch even less jealous of the royal prerogative. 
 But, whatever the causes may have been which con- 
 tributed to the present condition of affairs, that condi- 
 tion was such that resistance had now become a duty. 
 The ends for which government exists were defeated. 
 If the nation possessed any constitutional rights, it was 
 now imperative that they should be declared and vin- 
 dicated. And, although many of the subsequent act- 
 ings of our fathers in the progress of the contest may 
 now be considered as of a questionable character, and 
 some of the actors may now be known to have been 
 influenced by selfish and unworthy motives, to the men 
 of the Covenant is due the glory of planting that Tree 
 of Liberty which, watered with the blood of many a 
 noble heart, grew up and flourished, and bade defiance 
 to the raging storms, and still shelters their descendants 
 beneath its spreading boughs. 
 
 Yet must it not be forgotten that the principles of 
 true freedom were not fully understood by the early 
 Covenanters. The Church and the nation were united 
 
f 
 BLEND CIVIL WITH ECCLESIASTICAL. 133 
 
 in the contest against regal despotism. The Church 
 was ready to take the lead in the enterprise against 
 royal supremacy, but her own claims, at the very time, 
 were, in some instances, not less incompatible with the 
 claims of liberty. Her Assemblies did, in some in- 
 stances, too much assume the aspect of political conven- 
 tions. Met and constituted in the name of her great 
 Head, they shewed some inclination to invade the 
 province of Caesar. While bearing high testimony to 
 the Headship of the blessed Redeemer, they sometimes 
 confounded the civil and spiritual jurisdictions, protest- 
 ing against civil interference in sacred things, yet 
 themselves interfering in matters purely civil. Of these 
 Assemblies many of the members were the political 
 leaders of the period, and to the sacred arena of the 
 courts ecclesiastical they transferred somewhat both of 
 the spirit and of the matter of their secular contendings. 
 It cannot be denied that sometimes they assumed the 
 character of political convocations. The Covenant 
 itself in -which they were leagued together, fostered the 
 tendency to do so. Perhaps the peculiarity of their cir- 
 cumstances rendered this result inevitable. The result, 
 however, was unfortunate with respect to that spirituality 
 which should have characterised the actings of a Church 
 of Christ. It led — perhaps compelled — them to the 
 exercise of civil functions ; and this blending of civil 
 with ecclesiastical power resulted in the assumption of 
 authority which, if unchecked, would have been as fatal, 
 both to civil and religious freedom, as those despotic 
 encroachments which they had united to oppose. 
 
134 OPPOSE REGAL TYRAXJOT. 
 
 These remarks apply both to the Assembly of 1638^ 
 and to all that succeeded during the brief period that 
 elapsed till Presbyterianism was again put down. After 
 the Restoration, indeed, and down almost to the Re- 
 volution, through a long and dismal period of horrible 
 })ersecution, during which Charles II. so terribly 
 avenofed the insults which had been offered him by the 
 Presbyterians in their day of power, the men of the 
 Covenant were they who alone had preserved the 
 almost extino-ulshed embers of freedom in the land. 
 Poor and despised — deserted by the nobles and higher 
 classes, who, with a few notable exceptions, had basely 
 succumbed to the tyrant, and retained not even the 
 semblance of liberty — crushed by the minions of des- 
 potism, who, by persecution in every form, fines, con- 
 fiscations, banishments, bonds, tortures, and death, had 
 hoped either to subdue or utterly to destroy them — 
 they maintained their steadfastness and preserved their 
 testimony ; and — whether by indomitable endurance, or 
 obstinacy which no amount of suffering could vanquish, 
 or dogged fanaticism, or noble patriotism, or strength 
 of holy principle, inspired and upheld by the grace of 
 heaven — the scattered and bleeding remnant triumphed 
 over the oppressor, and survived to witness the last of 
 the royal line driven into ignominious exile by an almost 
 unanimous people, whose indignation their sufferings 
 and courage and steadfastness had tended to arouse. 
 
 But let us substantiate our assertions respecting the 
 claims and usurpations of the Church at, and immediately 
 subsequent to, the period of the Second Reformation. 
 
BECOME THEMSELVES TYRANNICAL. 135 
 
 Our assertion is, that the claims of spiritual inde- 
 pendence then made and acted on, and the consequent 
 assumptions of civil rule, were incompatible with either 
 civil or reliQ:ious freedom. 
 
 The authorities to be adduced will scarcely admit of 
 dispute, being chiefly the authentic records of the 
 various Assemblies of the Church. 
 
 I do not dwell on the assumption of the highest civil 
 authority on the part of the Assembly 1Q3'^, implied in 
 their explicit abrogation of a series of Acts of Parlia- 
 ment, although Henderson himself, their distinguished 
 Moderator, admits, " that they cannot think themselves 
 secure till civil authority ratify what is here done by 
 ecclesiastical constitution;" and although the Assem- 
 bly of 1G39 did virtually, for the time at least, ignore 
 that of the preceding year, consenting to the proposal 
 of his Majesty's Commissioner, that it should neither, 
 on the one hand, be referred to, nor, on the other, 
 condemned. 
 
 I proceed to verify the allegations which I have 
 made by reference to other Acts of the Assembly 1 638, 
 and of those which immediately succeeded. My asser- 
 tion is, that the principles by them avowed, and acted 
 on and embodied in various Acts of the Assemblies, 
 were tyrannical and intolerant, subversive of the rights 
 of conscience, and inconsistent with civil and religious 
 liberty. In proof of this assertion I refer, — 
 
 1st. To the power assumed hy the Church of comj^elling 
 men of every rank to sign the League and Covenant, 
 
 (1 .) As to the National Covenant. In the Assembly 
 
13() COMPEL ADHERENCE TO NATIONAL COVENANT. 
 
 1638 it was proposed, but ultimately referred to Pres- 
 byteries, " that all persons, of whatsoever state and 
 condition, be obliged to swear and subscribe the Con- 
 fession of Faith, as it is now condescended upon by the 
 General Assembly." The Assembly 1639 "injolned 
 all persons to subscribe the Covenant, under all ecclesi- 
 astical censure." In subsequent Assemblies the same 
 mandate is again and again renewed, and stringent 
 measures adopted to prevent evasion of the stern com- 
 mand. And, not contented with the infliction of eccle- 
 siastical censures, the Church sought and obtained 
 against recusants the infliction of civil penalties. Could 
 tyranny have devised an engine more oppressive, or 
 more likely to ensnare the consciences of man? No 
 wonder that these acts required to be frequently re- 
 newed, for thousands must have been anxious to escape 
 the despotic ordeal. Multitudes must have been com- 
 pelled to perjure themselves. Evasion was provided 
 against. Every Synod, every Presbytery, every minis- 
 ter, was enjoined to enforce the deed.* Men were com- 
 pelled to swear and sign the solemn document ; and if, 
 upon reflection, their consciences reproved them for the 
 act, and they afterwards maligned the Covenant — as it 
 would seem they sometimes ventured to do — they were 
 dealt with as perjured persons. f Well may Dr. Cook 
 remark, " This ordinance " — referring to the Act of 
 1639 — "so popular throughout the kingdom, was, in 
 
 fact, an engine of severe persecution So long 
 
 as signing the Covenant was a voluntary expression of 
 • Act of Assembly, sess. vi., 1643. f Assembly, sess. v., 1640. 
 
ALSO TO SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. 137 
 
 attachment to a particular cause, much might be saiil 
 in its justification. But now, when it was required by 
 an Act of the Council and the Church, which it was 
 dangerous to disobey — now that it could be forced by 
 the zealots of a sect upon all whom they chose to 
 harass — it must be abhorred, as occasioning, to the 
 conscientious part of the community, much wretched- 
 ness, and as calculated to diffuse that relaxation of 
 principle, which is the bitter fruit of every deviation 
 from the tolerant spirit of pure religion." * 
 
 (2.) As to the Solemn League and Covenant. In 
 1643 this celebrated document emanated from the 
 Assembly, destined as it was to effect the most im- 
 portant results on the history of these kingdoms. To 
 these results it is not necessary to refer. The history 
 of that remarkable Covenant is known to all. The one 
 point with which we have at present to do, is the com- 
 pulsory signing of it. The majority of the nation 
 received it joyfully ; but no toleration was shewn in 
 behalf of those, and they were many, who scrupled to 
 attach their sis^natures. Adherence was extorted from 
 men of every rank. No efforts were spared to impose 
 it on all within the three kingdoms. Charles I., when 
 entangled in meshes from which he could not escape, 
 was urged by every inducement to sign, in spite of 
 
 * Hist., vol. ii., pp. 501-2. The penalties attached to refusal to subscribe 
 Tvere of no light kind. " April 3, 1639. — The Tonne (Aberdeen) being con- 
 vened in the Colledge Kirk, the Provest intimateth to them that they were 
 urged to subscryve the Covenant, with the determination of the Glasgow 
 Assembly, under the pain of disarming them, and confiscation of all their 
 goods. After reading of the Covenant, the Town took it to be advised." — 
 Row, p. 514. 
 
138 EVEN BY CIVIL PENALTIES. 
 
 alleired conscientious convictions which he declared to 
 be invincible. His signature was wrung from his son 
 by men who could scarcely fail to know that it was 
 given in insincerity, and would, upon the first favour- 
 able opportunity, be violated. Nor can any more 
 striking proof be required of the wickedness of that 
 compulsion, and its direct tendency to foster hypocrisy 
 in its most revolting form, than the fact that, at a 
 future period, the most bloodthirsty agents of the 
 misguided sovereign, in the inhuman persecutions which 
 succeeded, were men who had been zealous in the cause 
 of the Covenant.* 
 
 Baillie, in a letter, 17th November 1643, thus alludes 
 to the effective means resorted to for gaining over 
 recusant consciences : — " Copies were despatched to 
 the Moderators of all our Presbyteries, to cause read 
 and expone that Covenant the first Sunday after their 
 receipt, and the Sunday following, to cause sware it by 
 men and women, and all of understanding, in every 
 Church of our land, and subscribe by the hand of all 
 men who could write, and by the Clerk of Session, in 
 name of those who could not write, with certification of 
 the Church censures, and confiscation of goods, presently 
 to he inflicted on all refusers^ f 
 
 In proof of my assertion, I refer, 2dly, to the 
 
 * Among others, Lauderdale, Sir James Turner, and the detested Sharp. 
 
 f Letters, vol. i., p. 392. Tliere was, it is to be feared, too much truth in 
 the following statement given in to the Protesters in 1651, by *' a godly 
 brother," lamenting over, while he enumerates, many of the sins of the 
 times. " A fleshly zeal and policy in pursuing and carrying on the Cove- 
 nant and League by cruel oppressions, making Acts for constraining all sorts 
 of persons, as well men of tender consciences as the most profane and 
 
CONTROL rUBLIC PRESS, ETC. 139 
 
 assumption on the part of the Church of power to forbid 
 all questioning of their authority^ and to punish all icho 
 shoidd venture to speak or to write against either the Cove- 
 nant or any of their A cts. 
 
 This assertion may seem an extravagant one. Some 
 readers may be apt to imagine that I have mistaken, for 
 Acts of Assemblv, some of the unojuarded decisions of 
 the Council of Trent. 
 
 The Assembly 1638 decrees as follows: — "The As- 
 sembly constitutes and ordains, that from henceforth no 
 sort of person, of whatsoever quality and degree, be per- 
 mitted to speak or write against the said Confession (the 
 Covenant), this Assembly, or any Act of this Assembly, 
 and that under the pain of incurring the censures of this 
 Kirk." * 
 
 2tdly, I refer, as akin to this, to the right of control as- 
 sumed by the Church over the public press — her refusal of 
 the right of discussion and of private judgment — her in- 
 junctions to search out for books of which she disapproved. 
 
 The Assembly 1638, "by virtue of their ecclesiasti- 
 cal authority, unanimously dischargeth all printers with- 
 in this kingdom, to print any Act of the former Assem- 
 blies, . . any Confession of Faith, any protestation, 
 . . . or any treatise whatsoever luhich may concern the 
 
 grossly ignorant in the land, to take the Covenant, under the hazard of in- 
 curring the highest censures both of Church and State." 
 
 Such charges as are made in the text against this part of the conduct of 
 the Covenanters have been disputed, and indeed denied. Professor M'Crie, 
 for instance, in his " Sketches of the Scottish Church Histury," repudiates 
 such allegations. The documents adduced, however, are too distinct to be 
 explained away, and too authoritative to be denied. Vide Kote C. 
 
 * Records of the Kirk of Scotland, p. 37. 
 
140 FOKBID ALL CONVERSE WITH DISAFFECTED. 
 
 Kirk of Scotland^ or God's cause in hand, without war- 
 rant." * 
 
 The Assembly 1643 passed "an Act for searching 
 books tending to separation." 
 
 In 1647 they passed an Act of similar import, "dis- 
 charging the importing, venting, or spreading of erron- 
 ious books or papers." In that Act, " the General As- 
 sembly, considering how the errors of Independency and 
 separation have spread in our neighbour kingdom of 
 England, ... do therefore, in the name of God, 
 inliihit and discharge all members of this Kirk and king- 
 dom^ to converse with persons tainted with such errors; or 
 to import^ sell, spread, vent, or disperse such erroneous 
 books or papers." f 
 
 In proof of my assertions, I might refer, Athig, to Acts 
 against all non-communicants (Assembly 1642 and 
 1644); to Acts forbidding, under pain of excommunica- 
 tion, all intercourse with persons under the ban of the 
 Church (1638, &c.) ; to Acts soliciting the civil power to 
 compel persons excommunicated "to satisfy the Kirk and 
 obtain themselves absolved, under the pain of rebellion," 
 (1643); to Acts enjoining Popish parents to give up 
 their children to be educated, at their own expense, by 
 Protestants, " as the Presbytery shall approve," and to 
 find caution for bringing home, for the same purpose, 
 such of their children as might be without the kingdom 
 (1642, 1648, &c.). I might refer to Acts of hateful 
 tyranny on the part of Assemblies and their commis- 
 
 • Records of the Kirk, p. 39. 
 
 f Records of the Kirk, p. 476. Vide also p. 498. 
 
DENOUNCE LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. 141 
 
 sions, in the matter of transportations of ministers to 
 new charges — " evidently," as Baillie remarks, " packed 
 businesses, little for the credit either of the transporters 
 or transported" — or in the matter of Church censures and 
 depositions of ministers, in regard to which the leaders 
 of the Church carried it with so high and reckless a 
 hand as to excite the disgust of men of impartial minds.* 
 I might refer to the utter abhorrence so often expressed 
 of all approach to the principle of toleration. " Liberty 
 
 * The following remarks by Spang, the correspondent of Baillie, occur in 
 a letter dated March 19th, 1649, and are worthy of careful perusal : — " Like- 
 wise it woidd be needful that ye remitted much of that rigor which, in your 
 Church-assemblies, ye use against ministers who have proven your great 
 friends ever before. It will be better to let your sails fall somewhat lower 
 in time, before a storm compel you ; or ye, who think God so highly glori- 
 fied by casting out your brethren, and putting so many to beggary, making 
 room through such depositions to young youths, who are oft miscarried 
 with ignorant zeal, may be made, through your own experience, to feel 
 what it is which now without pity is executed upon others. Generally the 
 great power which the Commission of the Kirk exercises displeaseth all. It 
 is but an extraordinary meeting, and yet sits constantly and more ordinarily 
 than any Synod ; yea, and without the knowledge of pro^*incial Synods and 
 Presbyteries, deposes ministers, injoins, pro auctorltate, what writs they 
 please to be read, inflicts censures upon those who will not read them. If 
 the Kirk of Scotland look not to this in time, we will lament it when we 
 cannot mend it. They say four or five rule that meeting; and is not the 
 liberty of the Kirk come to a fair market thereby? We have an Act 
 that nothing shall be brought to a greater meeting which has not first been 
 treated of in a smaller ; but now your compend of the General Assembly, 
 or deputes of it, at the first instance judge of matters which might be better 
 handled in lesser meetings. For God's sake, look this course in time be 
 stopped, else the Commission of the Kirk will swallow up all other ecclesi- 
 astick judicatories, and such ministers who reside in and about Edinburgh 
 shall at last ingross all Church-power in their hands. I know there is a 
 piece of prudence hereby used, — to get the power in the bands of those 
 who are good ; but what assurance have we but what they may change, 
 or others, following this course, creep into their places. "We meet with 
 daily regrets that the ancient ministry are condemned, and the insolence 
 of young ones fostered — the very forerunner of Jerusalem's destruction. 
 The Lord make us wise in time" 
 
142 DENOUNCE LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. 
 
 of conscience ! " " Toleration of sects ! " The very terms 
 Avere considered an abomination. It was not without 
 cause that the Independents in the Westminster As- 
 sembly "proclaimed their fears of the rigours of Pres- 
 bytery." 
 
 I dwell not, however, on these thing?, so utterly at 
 variance with the spirit and principles of the Gospel of 
 of the blessed Jesus. I refer to them w^ith sorrow. 
 They cannot be defended ; and if an apology for them 
 be sought in the character of the times, that apology 
 amounts to the admission that that boasted period of 
 the Church was a period when, practically at least, the 
 first principles of our holy religion were set at nought. 
 Our fathers of the "golden period" confined the liberty 
 of conscience to the liberty of agreeing with them. The 
 mantle of heaven-born charity was not understood to 
 cover the sins of " sectaries." * 
 
 I pass on to prove my assertion, by adducing in- 
 stances of assumption, on the part of the Church, of civil 
 and political power. A few out of many must suffice. 
 
 For instance, there was on the part of the Commis- 
 sion of the Assembly in 1646, acting with the full 
 authority of the Assembly itself, a most distinct usurpa- 
 
 * They were ready, however, to assert the rights of conscience whenever 
 their own views were interfered with. The inconsistency even of good men 
 is marxellous and humbling. Even those who, without compunction, forced 
 their Covenant on others, could loudly remonstrate, on the plea of conscience, 
 when called on to consent to what they did not approve. They protested 
 against being " compelled and forced either to sin against their consciences, 
 or to be under heavy pressures and burdens." See " Declaration of Assembly 
 1648, concerning the present dangers of religion, and especially the unlaw- 
 ful engagement in war." 
 
OPPOSE THE ESTATES. 143 
 
 tlon of political power, when, in opposition to the Act 
 of the Estates of Parliament, that Commission issued 
 its " Solemn and seasonable warning to all estates and 
 degrees of persons throughout the land." * The Com- 
 mission endeavoured to supersede Parliament alto- 
 gether, in a matter of great importance connected with 
 the safety of the king. 
 
 "During the recess of Parliament, in addition to 
 their wonted modes of agitation from the pulpits, peti- 
 tions came up from Synods requiring Parliament to do 
 nothing important without the concurrence of the 
 General Assembly; and the Commission more openly 
 obtruded its interference during the time that the 
 muster of levies was in progress, drew up an answer to 
 to the Declaration of Parliament, which was circulated 
 through the Presbyteries, denouncing the resolution 
 which had been adopted by Parliament, ordaining 
 ministers to read the counter manifesto from their pul- 
 pits, and threatening all with excommunication and the 
 divine wrath who should enrol under the standard of 
 the king and Scottish Parliament. A more monstrous 
 instance of usurpation is nowhere to be found in the 
 past history of the Reformed Church ; and even Baillie, 
 one of those who was a party to these extravagant pre- 
 tensions to political power, is constrained to deplore the 
 consequences which flowed from it." f 
 
 * Vide Records of the Kirk of Scotland, p. 489. Vide also Cook's Hist. 
 of Church, vol. iii., p. 153. 
 
 t Records of the Kirk, p. 494. Baillie remarks :— " The danger of this 
 rigidity is like to be fatal to the king, to the whole isle, both churches and 
 states. We mourn for it to God. Though it proceed from two or thiee 
 
144 OPPOSE THE ESTATES. 
 
 Such was the conduct of the Church, in obedience to 
 the dictates of their leading men, with reference to the 
 famous " Eng^aofement," as it was termed. Their con- 
 duct manifested the most marked contempt for the 
 civil power. They distinctly declared the Acts of the 
 Parliament to be unlawful, and forbade obedience to 
 them by all, " as they would not incur the wrath of God, 
 and the censures of the Kirk." * 
 
 The Assembly assumed to themselves the right of 
 judging and determining on the lawfulness of war, and 
 asserted that they should be consulted as to whether a 
 war should be undertaken or not, defending their as- 
 sumption by Scripture references, and particularly by 
 the case of J oshua and all the congregation, " who 
 were commanded to go out and in at the word of 
 Eleazer the priest." f 
 
 They ordained all ministers to preach against the 
 order of the Estates of Parliament ; nay, to make this 
 and kindred defections the chief topic of applications 
 
 men at most, yet it seems remediless. If we be kept from a present civil 
 war, it is God, and not the wisdom of our most wise and best men, which 
 will save us. I am more and more in the mind that it were for the good 
 of the world that churchmen did middle with ecclesiastic affairs only; that 
 were they ever so able otherwise, they are unhappy statesmen." — Letters, 
 vol. ii., p. 286. 
 
 The Parliament, of course, found it necessary to interfere. In their Acts 
 they narrate the dangerous intermeddling of the clergy, who, both in public 
 and in private, "labour as far as in their power, to stir up (he people to 
 an opposition against the authority of Parliament, . . . and nsnrp a 
 power upon themselves to he judges of the laws and proceedings of Parlia- 
 ment.''^ 
 
 • Vide Act and Declaration of Assembly 1648, against the Act of Parlia- 
 ment and Committee of Estates. 
 
 f Assembly's Answer to the Committee of Estates. August 1st, 1648. 
 
EXCOMMUNICAl'E ALL OPPOSERS. 145 
 
 in sermons, under pain of censure and deposition, " for 
 being pleasers of men rather than servants of Christ, 
 for giving themselves to a detestable indifferency or 
 neutrality in the cause of God, and for defrauding the 
 souls of people ; " and if any of the ])eople should oi^pose 
 the tninisters in the discharge of this high duty thus im- 
 posed, by ecclesiastical authority, on the ambassadors 
 for Christ, they were to be proceeded against, even to 
 excommunication.* 
 
 * Act for censuring ministers for their silence, and not speaking to the 
 corruptions of the time, August 3, 1648. It is curious to observe this As- 
 sembly all the while protesting that it is a calumny to assert that they 
 meddle with civil aifairs, and branding those who venture to say so as 
 '• Malignants." — Declaration concerning present Dangers of Religion^ ^"C, 
 1648. 
 
 Many hints as to the composition, chai-acter, and intolerance of this 
 Assembly are given by Baillie in his letters of that year. He admits 
 that it was, to a great extent, a packed Assembly. " It was care- 
 fully provided that in all Presbyteries they should be chosen who were 
 most zealous for the Covenant, and for the proceedings of the Commission 
 of the Kirk, and for the maintenance thereof; so that this Assembly did 
 consist of such Avhose minds carried them most against the present engage- 
 ment, which was the great and only question for the time." He admits 
 that the Assembly rejected commissions of those whose opposition they 
 feared. "With the commissions from the boroughs they had some trouble. 
 All, however, were "for tolerating th^vix^for ftar of offending the boroughs 
 at this time.'''' He admits that nothing but a suspicion of weakness Avould 
 have prevented the leading men of the Assembly from sanctioning an ap- 
 peal to arms against the ParUament. " I knew that most of the leading- 
 men thought a resistance by arms to the ways in hand la^-ful enough, if 
 the dissenters in Parliament, or any considerable part of the kingdom, had 
 courage and probable force to act." He admits their intolerance. " It Avas 
 much pressed that such as had been active for the engagement should be 
 kept from the holy table." " Also it was pressed (and carried) that minis- 
 ters silent, who did not preach against the engagement, should for this be 
 deposed." In short, Baillie admits that this packed and intolerant Assem- 
 bly occupied nearly their whole time with the one subject of opposition to 
 the Estates (their fellow-Covenanters), and in persecuting those who differed 
 from them, to the almost entire neglect of the true interests of Christ's 
 spiritual kingdom, and even of the "doctrinals which the last General 
 
 K 
 
146 NOTES TO CHAPTEK YI. 
 
 NOTES TO CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Note A. 
 
 The venerable biographer of Melville, in his remarks on the 
 Reformers' Declinature^ given in to the Privy Council, triumph- 
 antly vindicates the step taken in declining their authority, as not 
 the proper civil court to dispose of the case. "Every lawful 
 judicature," he remarks, " is not entitled to judge in every cause, 
 and a party has a right to take legal steps for having his cause 
 brought before the competent judges. Even in that age, when 
 the boundaries of the different jurisdictions were far from being 
 accurately traced, it was not uncommon for persons to decline the 
 judgment of the Privy Council, and to advocate their cause to the 
 Court of Session." — Life of Melville, vol. i., p. 296. 
 
 The truth is, that, in so far, ]\Ielvillc was borne out by the 
 "agreement concluded by certain of the counsell and commis- 
 sioners of the Kirk, and practice ensuing thereupon;" and also 
 by the "special privilege granted and lately confirmed to the 
 maisters and students of the Universitie of St. Andrews." — 
 Caldericood, vol. iv., pp. 269, 270. 
 
 But Dr. M'Crie advances a step further than this. He defends 
 the claim of the Church to judge in the first instance, asserting, 
 however, that the Church's vindication of a preacher, accused of 
 uttering sedition in the pulpit, did not render it incompetent for 
 the civil magistrate to proceed against him. He also says, " I 
 need scarcely add, that the regulation in question was never 
 intended to apply to extraordinary cases ; and that no such im- 
 munity was pleaded as would prevent the executive government 
 from immediate procedure against a minister who should be 
 notoriously guilty of exciting sedition or treason by his preach- 
 ing, or who should even be suspected of this in a time of public 
 commotion or national alarm." — Life of Melville^ vol. i., pp. 
 296-300. 
 
 Assembly had recommended to all the Presbyteries." — Letters, June 26, 
 1648, (fee. 
 
 What pious mind amongst us does not feel grateful to the God of all 
 grace that our lot has been cast in better times, and that, though our 
 liberties have been purchased at a heavy cost, wc groan not under the 
 dominion of such Assemblies as those of the "golden period!" 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER VI. 147 
 
 Now this exception is Tirtually a yielding of the whole point, 
 and shews the diflSlculty which even such a man experienced 
 when attempting to defend extreme views. In almost all 
 the cases which occm-red, there was the allegation that the 
 parties were "notoriously guilty of exciting sedition." The 
 times were times of "public commotion," and the fact of the ac- 
 cusations being made, implied that the parties were at least " sus- 
 pected." Besides, if this concession be made, it cannot with any 
 show of reason be alleged that the magistrate is not to judge both 
 of the notoriety of the imputed guilt, and of the character of the 
 time ; and, this admitted, the prima instantia plea amounts to 
 nothing. 
 
 But, moreover, the only authority which Dr. M'Grie quotes, in 
 support of his assertion that the judgment of the Church courts 
 was not intended to bar, or had not the effect of preventing pro- 
 ceedings by the civil magstrate, is that of Principal Baillie, in his 
 answer to the Declaration, who states that, " since the Reforma- 
 tion of religion,, no man in Scotland did ever assert such things." 
 
 Principal Baillie is a valuable authority with regard to the 
 facts occurring in his own times ; but his testimony respecting 
 historical facts connected with a former age is valuable only in so 
 far as it is founded on evidence adduced. In the text,* we have 
 quoted some unquestionable authorities which go far towards the 
 opposite conclusion. Had the averment been, that, in "the 
 earlier days of the Reformation no man in Scotland did ever 
 assert such things," it would have been nearer the truth. But 
 what mean the statements quoted (pp. 126, &c.), that idolatry, 
 witchcraft, &c., though criminal, must be judged only by the 
 Kirk, the king's part being only to execute? Why is treason, 
 spoken by a minister in teaching, brought under the same 
 category with "herisie, idolatrie, blasphemie," all of which, it is 
 asserted, must be judged only by the ecclesiastical court? What 
 mean those statements " that the king should consent to all that, 
 by the Word of God's majesty, is concluded in His Assemblies?" 
 "That the acts of the ELirk should command and overrule kings?" 
 "That this Presbyterie, convened in the name and by the 
 authoritie of the Lord Jesus, hath a spiritual power ... to 
 reasoun, deliberat, and conclude in matters apperteaning to the 
 
 » P. 125, &c. 
 
148 NOTES TO CHAPTER VI. 
 
 conscieuce, whose conclusions, resolutions, and determinations on 
 earth, are ratified in the heavens; and whosoever contemneth 
 the authority thereof, sould be esteemed as an ethnick or a 
 publican?" — Calderwood, vol. iv., pp. 290, 291. Had a minister, 
 accused of sedition, been absolved by his ecclesiastical superiors, 
 what room was left for civil interference ? Would not such inter- 
 ference, according to this doctrine, have put the civil authority 
 under the Church's ban? The claim obviously amounted to 
 what we have stated in the text, and it was one inconsistent with 
 every principle of good government in the state. Taken in con- 
 nexion with the explanation given in one of the preceding 
 quotations — that it was not the pulpit only that was to give the 
 sacred character to the teaching, so as to bring it within the 
 jurisdiction of the spiritual court, but that it belonged to the 
 ''message and commission," wheresoever delivered and exercised — 
 the claim, as far as treason or sedition on the part of an ecclesi- 
 astic was concerned, did amount woudrously near to what 
 Dr. Robertson alleges, but to which Dr. M'Crie demurs, viz., 
 to that exemption which Popish ecclesiastics claimed from civil 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Note B. 
 
 Hume was justly reckoned among the " godlie and faithful ser- 
 vants " of the Lord. He was a bold witness against the corrup- 
 tions of the time. But while he witnessed against the attempts 
 made to introduce the " hierachy of prelates in this Kirk," he 
 testifies with not less zeal against the corruptions and unseemly 
 carriage of their opponents. The following i)assage is eminently 
 graphic, and furnishes a descrii)tion of the Church courts of the 
 period at once melancholy and ludicrous. Some of the scenes 
 and observations might not inaptly be transferred as illustrative 
 of other times. Every reader probabl}', except the very youngest, 
 is in circumstances to make the application. 
 
 " F}Tiallie, in your publict meitingis (as Presbitreis, Synodoll 
 and Generall Assembleis), their ar thrie abuses that may be cs- 
 pyed. First, confusioun and immodest behaviour. Secondlie, 
 superficial handling of materis. Thirdly, a partiall and pre- 
 sumptuous forme of dealing of a few men who ar counted to be 
 pillaris. The confusione of your Assembleis is suche, that their 
 is ueyther reverence, sylence, nor attendance: for when grave 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER VI. 149 
 
 materis ar in hand, sum ar whispering, and at thair quyet con- 
 fabulatioun. Many speake before they be requyred. And it can 
 not suffice that one speake att once, but a number all at once ; 
 and often tymes they that can worst speak have most speache, 
 and many speak to smal pnrpois, in such sort, that it wald ap- 
 peare that men rather contend to have thair word about, then to 
 gif licht for the decesioun of anie wechtie caus. And, thahfoir, 
 civill men haif yoiir Assembleis ower justlie in derisioun and con- 
 tempt, comparing them to Birlay Courtis, where is much jang- 
 ling. Sumtyme it was not so, brethren, but now the gravitie and 
 guid ordour of civill judicatories may mak you Theologues to be 
 aschamed. Moreover, when one day is past at your synodolis, 
 their is no moir but a calling to the Moderator, mak hast, we 
 must go home ; and thei who have best moyen to remane, per- 
 happis werie first, as thoght they cam not to do the wark of God, 
 nor to regaird the weil of the Kirk, but onlie to mak a schew, to 
 confeiTe, to drink with thair familiaris, and then go hame agane. 
 Heirupon it cometh to pas that post heist must be maid, and 
 materis superficiallie handled. Sum materis ar glansed at, and 
 continued to the next Assemblie ; a number of uther materis ar 
 refeiTed to thair Presbitreis, or to commissioneris ; and gif anie 
 mater go to voting, smal or no reasoning goeth befoir, but haif- 
 fing collected the sufi'rages of a four or fyve personis, then be- 
 caus no man sayeth against it, silence is taken for consent, and 
 the mater concluded as a deade done by the whole Assemblie. 
 The Lord be mercifuU to you concerning theis thingis ! Thu-dly, 
 boithe in Presbitreis and Assembleis, a few men haif the sway ; 
 for luke what thei tak upone hand to reasone and sustaine, it 
 must have place, and go through. And never saw I yit a per- 
 soun so vyle, nor a fact so odious, and of such atrocitie, bot it 
 suld have gottin sum patrone to speak for it, eyther to denye it, 
 to disguyse it, to excuse it, to extenuat it, or, at least, to entreat 
 for pardone to it : a vyle and lamentable thing to be hard in the 
 men of God. Farther, solisting and requesting by parteis is ad- 
 mitted no les then among civill judges, which is pre-occupeing 
 of the mynd, and a thing prejudiciall to equitable judgment. 
 Now, theis fou'said leirned and wyse men must not be controlled 
 nor impugned by meane landwart teacheris, how zealous and up- 
 rycht soever they be, but must be respected for thair giftis ; and 
 gif perhappis anie wald insist and mak oppositioun, he sal be but 
 
150 NOTES TO CHAPTER YI. 
 
 mockit and borne doime by theis Rabbins. The gi'ytest mimber, 
 then, of brethren in Presbitreis and Assembleis, may be com- 
 pared to the litill godis, Minores Dij\ among the Gentill quhilk 
 thei called Dij consentes. So the ringleideris among you say the 
 ■word, and the rest say, we think so too. Or as the letteres of the 
 Alphabeth are devyded into vowellis and consonants, so are you. 
 Quot sunt liter (B ? (says the Rudiment.) It is answered, Viginti 
 duce^ &c. Quot sunt ex his vocales? Quinque. QucbI A, e, /, o, u. 
 Quot sunt conso7ia7ites ? ReliqucB omnes. So may it be said of 
 you, my brethren, Quot sunt Presbiteri ? Quamplures. Quot sunt 
 ex his vocales ? Quinque vel sex. Quot sunt consonantes .^ Reli- 
 qucB omnes. Alace, brethrene, this maketh gude men to muse, 
 quhidder it wer better to half a goode manifest stedfast Byschope 
 in a Presbitrie, or to half dyvers in effect, refusing the name, pre- 
 tending paritie, but observing non. No questioun the grace and 
 giorie of our ministrie, of our Presbitreis and Assembleis, is not- 
 ablie decayed ; and farr is all declined from that measour of per- 
 fectioun quhilk it haid, sone after the beginning of Reforma- 
 tioun." — Woodrow.^ Miscellany^ vol. i., pp. 587, 588. 
 
 Note C. 
 
 Professor M'Crie will not allow that compulsion was used in 
 obtaining signatures to the Covenant. His words are — " No com- 
 pulsion was used to procure subscriptions, for none was needed. 
 Some individuals, indeed, among the clergy, who refused to sign, 
 might be treated somewhat unceremoniously ; but this was rather 
 an expression of the popular dislike at the measures with which 
 they were identified, than an attempt to force their consciences. 
 Everything like personal violence was deprecated and repressed 
 by the leaders of the Covenant. ... So far from persons 
 being compelled to sign the Covenant, great care was taken to 
 prevent improper or incompetent subscriptions. None were 
 allowed to sign but such as had communicated in the Lord's 
 Supper." — Sketches., p. 217. 
 
 The reader may judge whether it is possible to reconcile these 
 assertions with the evidence adduced in the text. In page 260, 
 Dr. M'Crie says — "We have already seen that, at first, no com- 
 pulsion was used, with consent either of the Church or the Parlia- 
 ment, in imposing the Covenant." That there was a tendency to 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER VI. 151 
 
 compulsion even at first, is obvious from the overture proposed 
 by the Committee of Assembly 1638 — " That all persons of what- 
 soever state and condition be oUiged to sware and subscribe." 
 
 The following year " all persons were enjoined to subscribe, 
 under all ecclesiastical censure.'''' If " no compulsion was used, for 
 none was needed," what are we to make of the folloAving Act of 
 Assembly 1643? — "The General Assembly, considering that the 
 Act of the Assembly at Edinburgh, 1639, August 30, injoining all 
 persons to subscribe the Covenant, under all ecclesiastical censm-e, 
 hath not been obeyed : therefore ordains all ministers to make in- 
 timation of the said Act in their kii'ks, and thereafter to proceed 
 with the censures of the Kirk against such as shall refuse to sub- 
 scribe ih€ Covenant. And that exact account be taken of every 
 minister's diligence hereintill by their Presbyteries and Synods, 
 as they will answ^er to the General Assembly." These " censm-es 
 of the Kii-k" did not terminate in mere deprivation of spiritual 
 privileges. That same Assembly (1643) took advantage of an 
 early Act (1573) for " using civil execution against excommunicate 
 persons.'''' In 1573 the Lord Regent sent to the Assembly " cer- 
 tain heads and prnpositions." One of these was a resolution to 
 proceed to the execution of civil pains against persons excom- 
 municate. "Executions of the sentence of excommunication 
 after the space of forty days past, shall be presented to the Lord 
 Treasurer, or his clerk, who thereupon shall raise letters by de- 
 liverance of the Lords of Session, to charge the persons excom- 
 municate, to satisfy the Kirk, and obtain themselves absolved, 
 under tlie pain of rebellion.'''' The Assembly 1643 revived this old 
 enactment. They adopted means to have it carried into execu- 
 tion. " To cause letters of horning and caption be raised and 
 execute, and other diligence to be used against the excommuniate 
 persons. And that all other civill action and dilligence may be 
 used against them, warranted and provided by Acts of Parliament, 
 or secret councell made thereanent ; and that particular account 
 be craved hereof in every General Assembly." 
 
 It is in that same year that Baillie makes the statement quoted 
 in the text, of intimations from the pulpit, enjoining all to sign, 
 who could write, and to employ the clerk of the session to sign 
 for them if they could not, "with certification of the Church 
 censures^ and confiscation of goods., presently to be inflicted on all 
 refusers.''^ Baillie continues : " With a marvellous unanimity was 
 
152 NOTES TO CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 this everjTvhere received. A great many among us averse from 
 this com'se, who bitterly spoke against our way everj-^vhere, and 
 none more than some of onr friends ; yet, in God's gi'eat mercy, 
 all that yet I have heard of have taken this oath. Sundry things 
 did much contribute to the running of it. It was drawn with such 
 circumspection, that little scruple fi'om any airth could be to any 
 equitable. For the matter^ the authority of a General Assembly 
 and Convention of Estates was great ; the penalties set down in print 
 before the Covenant^ and read with it, ice?'e great.'''' 
 
 These things, it will be admitted, sound very like compulsion. 
 They cannot be reconciled with the notion, that "none was 
 needed." Instances are not awanting of severe penalties inflicted 
 in the case of persons refusing to comply. Besides the case of 
 the town of Aberdeen, which, Dr. M'Crie says, "was almost the 
 only town that could complain of being forced into the bond," 
 others might, if necessary, be adduced. 
 
 On 22d October 1643, the Committee of Estates issued their 
 order that all Scotland should subscribe, threatening recusants 
 with punishment, as enemies of religion, of his Majesty, and of 
 the kingdom. The lords of the Council were imperatively en- 
 joined to subscribe by a certain day, and those who declined 
 obedience, including the Duke of Hamilton, and others, were 
 denounced as enemies to God and to their country — their estates 
 were ordered to be confiscated, and their persons to be seized. 
 
 NichoU, " our simple annalist," as Dr. M'Crie designates hira 
 (p. 361), referring to a period somewhat later, says: "At this 
 time, and sindry years before, many persons were troublit for not 
 subsci7ving the Covenant, and ministers deposit for the same. 
 Mr. Gawin Stewart, minister of Dalmellington, not only deposit 
 fra his ministrie, but he debarrit ab agendo in all his actions and 
 causis civillfor recovery of his debts.'''' 
 
 "James Macaulay, goldsmith, was not onlie excommunicat for 
 refusing to subscryve the Covenant, bot likewayis, at his death,, 
 his corps dischargit to be bureyit in the church -yaird." — Diary of 
 John NichoU. 
 
 The Doctor alleges that " none were allowed to sign but such as 
 had communicated in the Lord's Supper." But, alas, in these 
 times of religious freedom, all were compelled to communicate in 
 tlic Lord's Supper. Acts, at all events, were passed under which 
 all might be compelled. The Assembly 1642 enjohis "every 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER VI. 153 
 
 Presbytery to proceed against non-communicants, -whether 
 Papists or others, according to the Act of Parliament made there- 
 aneut." And the Assembly 1644 passed an ordinance, "enjoin- 
 ing the uplifting and employing penalties, according to the 
 laudable Acts of Parliament, against non-communicants and ex- 
 communicate persons," gi'eatly blaming the " slowness of Presby- 
 teries in seeking execution thereof," and commanding '-'•full and 
 exact execution of all such Acts,'''' and " careful uplifting of fines.'''' 
 
 The statement, therefore, which we have quoted, amounts to 
 veiy little, or rather to nothing relevant. Yet even that state- 
 ment is not quite correct. Whatever may have been done just at 
 the first opening of the work, the course afterwards adopted seems 
 to have been quite the reverse 5 for, instead of " allowing none to 
 sign but such as had communicated," the order rather was that 
 none should communicate but such as had signed. — Vide "De- 
 sires and Overtm-es," to Assembly 1647 : "That all students of 
 philosophic, at their entry and at their laureation, bee holden to 
 subscribe the League and Covenant, and be urged thereto, and cdl 
 other persons as they come to age and discretion, before their first 
 receiving the Sacrament of the Lord^s Supper. The Assembly 
 approves this overtm-e."* 
 
 Dr. M'Crie, in proof of his assertion, that, " so far fi-om persons 
 being compelled to sign the Covenant, great care was taken to 
 prevent improper or incompetent subscriptions," quotes that 
 statement of Henderson, that " some men, of no smaU note, 
 offered their subscriptions, and were refused, till time should 
 prove that they joined from love to the cause, and not from the 
 fear of man." I venture humbly to think that Henderson's 
 statement rather tends to prove the opposite. There was reason, 
 it seems, to suspect that "the fear of man" was inducing even 
 men of no small note to offer their subscriptions. 
 
 Thank God we do not live in days when men in power can, at 
 their nod, compel us to subscribe, and, at theii' caprice, refuse to 
 permit our subscripton. 
 
 I might multiply the proofs of my assertion in the text, but I 
 ventm-e to think it unnecessary. I place the quotations which I 
 
 * The Assembly 1648 renewed this mandate in the form of a separate 
 Act: "Hereafter that all persons whatsoever take the Covenant at their 
 first receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." 
 
154 NOTES TO CHArTER VI. 
 
 have given from the Acts of General Assemblies against all 
 averments that compulsion was not used in obtaining signatures 
 to the Covenants, only remarking that if, in point of fact, com- 
 pulsion was not used, our fathers were men of greater inconsist- 
 ency than I have been taught to consider them, or that the "fear 
 of man " had prevented them from puttmg their deliberate pur- 
 poses into effect. 
 
 Although this note has already extended to too gi'eat length, 
 there are yet two connected points to which I must advert. 
 
 Dr. M'Crie asserts that the charge brought against the Coven- 
 anting Assemblies, of restraining the liberty of the press, is just 
 one of many " calumnies which, though fully refuted at the time, 
 are retailed even to this day." — Pp. 248, 249. 
 
 I am aware that attempts at refutation were made shortly after 
 the passing of the obnoxious decrees. I am aware that Baillie, as 
 if ashamed of the tyi'annous enactments, endeavours to explain 
 away their import, as if they had respect to " church-registers" 
 only. I shall quote from two kindi'ed Acts of the Assembly 
 1638, and the reader may then judge whether the charge may 
 justly be described as a " calumny :" — 
 
 " Whereas the Confession of Faith of the Kirk, concerning both 
 doctrine and discipline, so often called in question by the corrupt 
 judgment and tyrannous authoritie of the pretended prelates, is 
 now clearly explained, and by this whole Kirk, represented by 
 this General Assembly concluded, ordained also to be subscribed 
 by all sorts of persons, within the said Kirk and kingdom ; the 
 Assemblie constitutes and ordains that from henceforth no sort of 
 person, of whatsoever quality and degree, be permitted to speak 
 or write against the said Confession^ this Assembly, or any Act 
 OF THIS Assembly." 
 
 The language here is too distinct to admit of any evasion. Let 
 a man torture it how he will, there the witness stands. 
 
 The other Act is the one specially referred to, and it breathes a 
 kindred spirit: "The Assembly, considering the great prejudice 
 which God's Kirk in this land hath sustained these years bypast, 
 by the unwarranted printing of libels, pamphets, &c., . . . . 
 the Assembly unanimously, by virtue of their ecclesiastical 
 authority^ dischargeth and inhibiteth all printers within this 
 kingdom to print . . . any Confession of Faith, any protesta- 
 tions, any reasons pro or contra^ anent the present divisions, and 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER YI. 155 
 
 controversies of this time, or any other treatise whatsoever 
 
 WHICH MAY CONCERN THE KiRK OF SCOTLAND, Or God's CAL'SE 
 
 IN HAND, without warrent subscribed by Mr. Archibald John- 
 ston, as clerk of the Assembly, and advocate for the Kirk." 
 
 There stands the other witness, stern as the brave though in- 
 tolerant men who fi'amed it, despising the torture of ingenious 
 critics, and spurning the flattery which would modify the testi- 
 mony to an innocent enactment, of which modem theologians 
 would not require to be ashamed. 
 
 The other point to which I shall briefly refer is the intolerance 
 of our fathers, and their refusal to grant liberty of conscience 
 to those that difi'ered from them. The fact of their intolerance 
 has been questioned; but, alas, the proofs are only too easily 
 adduced. That in their practice they did sometimes exercise 
 exemplary forbearance, is not to be denied ; but that their prin- 
 ciples were opposed to it, is beyond all reasonable doubt. 
 
 In his "Historical Vindication," Baillie endeavours to defend the 
 Church of Scotland from the imputation ; but, in his letters, the 
 proofs abound that toleration was hated and condemned by the 
 leading men of his times. Moderate though in many respects he 
 was, he largely shared the same spii-it. I shall quote only a very 
 few instances. They might be multiplied indefinitely. In a letter 
 to Spang, March 10th, 1644, he states that it is expected the 
 Synod of Zealand will give their brotherly advice anent all the 
 things in hand ; and, " above all, to beware of any toleration of 
 sects.'"' 
 
 Again, " They plead for a toleration to other sects as well as to 
 themselves. ... At last they gave us a paper, requu-ing 
 expressly a full toleration of congi'egations in theii' way every- 
 where, separate from om'S. In om* answers, we fatly denied such 
 a vast liberty.''^ 
 
 May 4th, 1645. " Theii' (the Independents') ways are more 
 disliked. The Directory is so far from being cried down, as fools 
 say there, that there is an ordinance of Parliament coming out for 
 the practice of it, if it be not changed, that I will be caution few 
 will dare to contemn, either that whole book, or any part of it. 
 . . . For preachers, writers, or publishers against it, were they 
 dukes or peers, then- third fault is the loss of all their goods, and 
 perpetual imprisonment.''^ 
 
 July 1st, 1645. " Further order for the Directory, after maD> 
 
156 NOTES TO CHAPTER VI. 
 
 debates, at last is past the House of Commons; very near as' 
 severe au ordinance as that against the neglect of the Service- 
 book." 
 
 Such was the toleration of the English Covenanters. Our own 
 Assembly was not a whit more tolerant. Their zeal for the 
 Covenant blinded them to the sin and folly of persecuting schisma- 
 tics and heretics. In 1647, they emitted the following Act:; 
 "Being tender of so gi*eat an engagement by solemn covenant, 
 sincerely, really, and constantly to endeavour .... the 
 nearest conjunction and uniformity, together with the extii-pation. 
 of heresie, schisme, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to. 
 sound doctrine, ... to give our publick testimony against 
 the dangerous tenets of Erastianisme, Independencie, and which 
 is falsely called liberty of conscience. . . . The General As- 
 sembly doth unanimously approve and agree unto these eight 
 general heads of doctrine : . . . 8. The civil magistrate may 
 and ought to suppresse by corporal or civil punishments^ such as, 
 by spreading errour or heresie, or by fomenting schisme, greatly 
 dishonour God, dangerously hurt religion, and disturbe the peace 
 of the Kirk." 
 
CHAPTER VIL 
 
 The Veto — Its Origin, Design, and End — Hopeful Movement for Abolition 
 of Patronage — The Veto introduced by the Leaders to check this, and to 
 secure Patronage — Its Supporters not justly chargeable with Rashness, 
 either in passing or for a time upholding it — Moderate Party unjustly 
 blamed for not co-operating for ha^nng it legalised. 
 
 The preceding historical sketches and examination of 
 principles have paved our way towards a dispassionate 
 examination of the facts connected with the Seces- 
 sion of 1843. Without inquiring too minutely into 
 the motives of either, we are prepared to test both 
 the principles and the conduct of the two great par- 
 ties in the contest which terminated in that melan- 
 choly event. 
 
 For many years preceding the Secession, a convic- 
 tion had been gaining ground, even among disinterested 
 observers, that, if our religious establishments were to be 
 rendered more extensively useful, or even to be pre- 
 served, it was necessary that, to some extent, they 
 should be popularised. Apart altogether from those 
 considerations which Scripture principle was supposed 
 to suggest, that spirit of the times which had made 
 itself felt in political, could not fail to extend its influ- 
 ence to ecclesiastical, affairs. The point to which its 
 energies were chiefly directed was the appointment of 
 candidates for the sacred ofl&ce. The ris^hts of the 
 Christian people, in connexion with this important mat- 
 
158 ANTI-PATRONAGE MOVEMENT. 
 
 ter, had long been overlooked. To what these rights 
 really amounted it had become difficult to say; but that 
 they did possess certain constitutional and valuable 
 rights was admitted by all, although these had for a 
 long time ceased to be exercised, w^hether from apathy 
 on the part of the people, or because repressed by those 
 who had had the management of Church affairs. A 
 change, however, had now, for some time, been appa- 
 rent. Patrons had begun, very generally, to consult 
 the reasonable wishes of the people ; and this Christian 
 and patriotic consideration on their part had not been 
 unappreciated. The Church was lengthening her cords 
 and strengthening her stakes. Intrusion of unaccept- 
 able ministers had become a memory of the past — a 
 thing indeed forgotten, except when the zeal of parti- 
 sanship found it convenient to recall it. 
 
 Within the Church there had been at all times some 
 who boldly protested in favour of popular rights. Their 
 number was now increasing. The recoil from "domi- 
 nant moderatism," as it was termed, was becoming daily 
 more conspicuous. Anti-patronage views were now 
 more boldly advocated, and were making rapid progress 
 among the clergy, and the eldership, and the people. 
 The passing of the Reform Bill in 1832 had not only 
 awakened a desire to possess the right of the election 
 of their ministers, but had put into the hands of the 
 people an instrument which, if skilfully wielded, might 
 have o-one far tow^ards the obtaininc^ of it. The occa- 
 sion was not ne^llccted. The le2;islature was assailed 
 with petitions for the total abolition of patronage ; and 
 
CHECKED BY NOX-IXTRUSIONISTS. 159 
 
 such were the numbers and the influence of these peti- 
 tions that the matter was brought under the serious 
 consideration of the House of Commons, and a commit- 
 tee of inquiry granted. The opponents of the system 
 of patronage had good reason to be hopeful of success. 
 Never before had circumstances been so favourable to 
 their cause. The middle classes were now in possession 
 of a power never previously enjoyed by them, and 
 among them especially, the leaders of the anti-patron- 
 age movement had succeeded in producing a degree of 
 excitement which it might not have been safe directly 
 to oppose. Many believed that the doom of patronage 
 in the Church of Scotland was sealed.* 
 
 Meanwhile, however, the leaders of the popular party 
 in the Church had begun, and were vigorously prose- 
 cutino;, a movement in another direction. An idea has 
 been, and still is, prevalent among many, who, under 
 the excitement of the late convulsing controversy, were 
 induced to abandon the Church of their fathers, that 
 the one great object of the leaders whom they followed 
 was to extend popular rights ; and, since it did not lie 
 with them to confer upon the people the election of 
 their ministers, to do at least as much as they supposed 
 they had any authority to do, viz., to confer upon the 
 people an absolute power of rejecting those Avhom the 
 patrons might present. This is altogether a mistake. 
 That many Avho took part in the movement were 
 
 * " Deliverance from the yoke of patronage was, for the first time since 
 its imposition, an object of reasonable and confident hope." Such was 
 the statement of Dr. M'Crie. — Life., p. 350. 
 
160 NON-INTKUSIONISTS UPHOLD PATRONAGE. 
 
 actuated by this motive is not to be questioned ; but, 
 that this was not the direct object of the leaders of the 
 party, admits of just as little doubt. 
 
 The design — nay, the declared purpose of the famous 
 Veto law — was J not so much to extend popular rights^ as 
 to repress popular claims — to meet, and, as far as pos- 
 sihhy to extinguish anti-patronage agitation. It became 
 convenient, indeed, in certain quarters, to sink this fact, 
 and allow it to be forgotten, when the object in view- 
 was to persuade a devoted and self-sacrificing people 
 that the contest was solely in behalf of their rights, and 
 " to restore to them a privilege of which they ought 
 never to have been deprived." But when, on the other 
 hand, men in power were to be conciliated, the fact 
 could be easily resuscitated, and they were told that 
 the Veto Act was out-and-out a " Conservative mea- 
 sure," designed to stem the rushing torrent, and to 
 prevent an otherwise inevitable assault on the ancient 
 rights of patrons. The sentiments of such men as Dr. 
 Chalmers and Dr. P. Macfarlane, on the subject of 
 popular election, are too well known to require to be 
 repeated. These, and the great majority of those who 
 acted with them or followed in their wake, were alto- 
 gether opposed to popular election, and condemned the 
 anti-patronage movement as revolutionary, and fraught 
 with danger. 
 
 We are not left, however, to gather the proof of our 
 assertion regarding the main purpose for which the 
 Veto law was introduced, from opinions expressed on 
 the subject of popular election. The proof is far more 
 
LOKD MONCRIEFF. 161 
 
 direct. In the opening of that speech in which Lord 
 MoncriefF introduced to the Assembly his memorable 
 motion of 1834 (the Veto law), occur the following ex- 
 pressions : " In the last Assembly I had the honour of 
 seconding the motion of my reverend father (Dr. Chal- 
 mers), and, in these circumstances, have not declined 
 to undertake this motion ; and we do propose this day 
 to make another effort (so far as any effort upon our 
 part may, under the blessing of the great Head of the 
 Church, avail) to stem the force of excitement and agita- 
 tion, which many of us think has been greatly increased 
 by the rejection of this motion in two former Assem- 
 blies." * 
 
 The "excitement and agitation" to which his Lordship 
 referred were those of the anti-patronage movement. 
 The force of these had become alarmingly great. Large 
 and influential meetings had been held throughout the 
 country. Numerous and weighty petitions had been 
 presented to the legislature. At this very time the 
 Committee of the House of Commons were engaged in 
 their inquiry, and only a few more efforts seemed to be 
 required to induce the legislature to propose a change 
 upon the existing law. In these circumstances it was 
 felt imperative that something should be done "to stem 
 the force of the agitation," which, if not speedily ar- 
 rested, w^ould be satisfied with nothing short of the 
 total abolition of patronage. 
 
 * His Lordship repeats the same sentiment in the Assembly 1835. 
 *' Their object," he says, '■^undoubtedly was \o preserve, not to put down, the 
 right of patronage." 
 
 L 
 
162 MR. HAMILTON'S TESTIMONY. 
 
 These words of Lord Moncrieff " indicated the spirit 
 and temper of mind with which the Assembly took up 
 the subject." Such is the testimony of Mr. Hamilton, 
 a faithful and able defender of the non-intrusion 
 cause.* 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Hamilton upon the point 
 under examination is explicit and valuable. He oc- 
 cupied a prominent position, and took an active part in 
 defence of the Church's claim, and in the negotiations 
 between the Government and the non-intrusion com- 
 mittee. His statements are as follows : — 
 
 " There, no doubt, was a desire for the abolition of 
 patronage in some quarters ; and hence ^ the excite- 
 ment and agitation,' referred to by Lord MoncriefF, and 
 the petitions addressed to Parliament hy the people, for 
 the attainment of that object. There was also a very 
 small section of the clergy who objected to lay patron- 
 age, on certain scriptural grounds, and who, therefore, 
 naturally sought its removal, and countenanced the 
 petitions to the legislature with that view. But Lord 
 IMoncrieff was most strenuously opposed to the aboli- 
 tion of patronage, and one main object which he, and the 
 great mass of his supporters, had in vieiv, luas to avoid 
 the necessity of such a result, by providing a check 
 against the felt and practical evils of patronage, — con- 
 ceiving that if these were once removed, the speculative 
 objections entertained by a few, as well as the clamours 
 of the people, would speedily die away, and be no more 
 
 * Eemonstrance respectfully addressed to the ^Members of tlic Legis- 
 lature. By John Hamilton, Esq., Advocate, p. 3G. 
 
ONE lIAm PUKPOSE OF VETO. 163 
 
 heard of. And, even in regard to the few members of 
 the Church courts who objected to patronage on 
 speculative grounds, so far w^ere they from looking 
 upon the measure proposed by the Church as an 
 ' instalment,' or ' a vantage ground,' from whence 
 they were to gain their ultimate object, that I can 
 state from the most intimate and confidential communi- 
 cations which I had with them while the measure was 
 in progress, that it was with the utmost difficulty they 
 could he brought to give their supj^ort to Lord Mon- 
 crieff^s measure ; because they saw thatj if once any such 
 measure were brought into operation, they might bid 
 adieu, for ever, to their favourite scheme of abolishing 
 jMtronage.^^ * 
 
 Again, in Appendix No. 1, occur the following state- 
 ments with reference to the Dean of Faculty's insinua- 
 tion that the ultimate object of the promoters of the 
 Veto was the abolition of patronage. "The origina- 
 tors of the Veto law (Lord MoncriefF, Dr. Chalmers, 
 &c.), according to their ^avowed' and solemnly re- 
 corded opinions, are in fact as decidedly and earnestly 
 opposed to the abolition of patronage as the Dean him- 
 self can possibly be ; and the same is the case with the 
 great mass of their supporters, — the expressed design 
 and purpose of introducing and maintaining the Veto law 
 being precisely the reverse of that stated by the Dean, 
 viz., to stop the clamour for the abolition of patronage, 
 and to preclude all hazard of such a measure being in 
 future attempted.'t 
 
 * Kemonstrance, pp. 39, 40. f Ibid., p. 95. 
 
164 TO STOP CLAMOUR AGAINST PATRONAGE. 
 
 The testimony of Dr. Buchanan, though somewhat 
 more cautiously expressed, is scarcely less explicit. 
 " Certain it is, there was no desire on the part of those 
 who had the chief hand in bringing forward the 
 measure now described (the Veto law) either to over- 
 throw the rights of patrons, or to come into unfriendly 
 collision wdth those to whom these rights belonged. 
 It w^as their honest belief, on the contrary, that w^ithout 
 such a concession to congregations as this measure in- 
 volved, — a concession which, after all, was only restor- 
 ing a privilege of which they ought never to have been 
 deprived, — patronage could not possibly be main- 
 tained." * 
 
 Such, then, it clearly appears, were the leading mo- 
 tives of the originators of the Veto law. It would be 
 most unjust, indeed, to breathe the suspicion that they 
 were not cordially desirous of vindicating what they 
 considered to be the people's rights. As to this, their 
 sincerity cannot be questioned ; but their motives were 
 complex. The necessity of popularising the Establish- 
 ment had forced itself upon the conviction of many. 
 The Church w^as assailed by very active foes, who w^ere 
 seeking her entire overthrow, and directing against her 
 the full energy of their newly acquired political influ- 
 ence. The masses without, and who had been estranged 
 from her communion, were being urged to demand her 
 destruction. The masses within, and who wxre still 
 attached to the Church of their fathers, demanded the 
 removal of what they had been taught to consider 
 
 • Ten Years' Conflict, vol. i., p. 245. 
 
TWOFOLD PURPOSE OF VETO. 165 
 
 abuses and grievances, and the restoration of what they 
 had been told were privileges of right belonging to 
 them. Something must be done ; concessions must be 
 made, both for the retaining of those within, and for 
 the disarming of those without the Church. Patronage, 
 however, must not be made the sacrifice. Of the 
 leaders in the great movement, scarcely one would 
 utter a word against the ancient institution. They en- 
 tertained a horror of popular elections.* Under patron- 
 age, the Church had attained her present condition of 
 strength, and energy, and zeal ; and loud and urgent 
 though the clamour was for its total abolition, they 
 were resolved to use their utmost efforts to uphold it. 
 They had a difficult game to play, — an intricate pro- 
 blem to solve. They had at once to rescue patronage 
 from the fierce grasp of its destroyers, and to appease 
 these enemies of their idol with a soothins^ boon. Thev 
 acted with consummate skill. They made the people's 
 boon the Palladium of their idol. They passed the 
 Veto, and saved patronage. 
 
 It were ungenerous, and, we believe, unjust to the 
 
 * In this consisted the radical difference between what has been called 
 the old popular party in the Church, and modern non-intrusionists. The 
 latter were for upholding, but at the same time modifying, the exercise of 
 patronage. The former were for uprooting the system altogether. They held 
 that " the order of election cannot stand with patronage, or presentation to 
 benefices.'" They were for renewing the Church's old protest, and not a few 
 of them strenuously opposed the Veto, on the very ground that it implied a 
 direct and formal sanction hy the Church to a system, submitted to indeed, 
 but never heretofore approved of. The attempts of that party were met 
 and crushed by the non-intrusion leaders, who, taking up a position never 
 occupied by our fathers, Ave re determined to strengthen and perpetuate pat- 
 ronage by accommodating its provisions to the circumstances of the times. 
 
166 HARASSIXG REFLECTION. 
 
 memory of departed greatness and worth, to insinuate 
 that the oriMators and framers of the Veto did not 
 sincerely desire the extension of the peo])le's privileges. 
 We cherish no such suspicion. At the same time, the 
 authoritative quotations which we have laid before the 
 reader, distinctly prove that this was neither the sole, 
 nor even the primary purpose of the originators of that 
 measure ; and it is but just that all should be made 
 aware, that that law, — for the pertinacious upholding of 
 which, even when found to be an illegal and unconsti- 
 tutional act, men were willing to endanger, and did 
 endanger, the existence of an Establishment which they 
 revered, and which they had sworn to maintain, — ow^ed 
 its origin not more — to use the mildest form of expres- 
 sion — to a wish to extend, and to preserve, the rights of 
 the people, than to a desire to maintain and perpetuate 
 a system which the people had been taught to consider 
 as an invasion of their sacred privileges. The urging 
 of the Veto law was " an effort to stem the force of ex- 
 citement and agitation ; " " one main object was to 
 avoid the necessity" of the abolition of patronage. 
 " The expressed design and purpose " of the Veto law 
 was " to stop the clamour for the abolition of patron- 
 age, and to preclude all hazard of such a measure." 
 
 Is it not a mysterious and harassing reflection, that 
 many a devoted servant of the Lord was compelled at 
 last to abandon his position in the Church which he 
 had loved, and where the Spirit had blessed his labours, 
 and given him seals of his high calling, — as the issue of 
 a controversy originating in an effort to uphold a system 
 
ANTI-PATEONAGE SUPPORTERS. 167 
 
 to which he had no attachment — to which, perhaps, he 
 was in his heart opposed ? Is it not a mysterious and 
 humbling reflection, that thousands of earnest Chris- 
 tians, to whom the very name of patronage is distaste- 
 ful, and who were taught to regard the whole system 
 as an unjust invasion of their constitutional privileges, 
 should have been compelled to abandon the goodly 
 house in which their fathers worshipped, and to con- 
 tribute to the erection and upholding of another, 
 founded on nothins^ less than an effort to maintain 
 that very system ? 
 
 Among those who constituted " the mass of the sup- 
 porters of the Veto," there were, no doubt, many who 
 were far from regarding the measure to be chiefly valu- 
 able as a means of stemming the force of agitation and 
 excitement, and as forming a safeguard around the sys- 
 tem of patronage. On the part of those of them who 
 held anti-patronage views, there was, it must be con- 
 fessed, something very like a compromise of principle ; 
 and hence, as iMr. Hamilton remarks, "it was with the 
 utmost difficulty they could be brought to give their 
 support." But the great majority of them, we are per- 
 suaded, gave their support just because they had con- 
 fidence in the skill and judgment of their leaders, and 
 because the measure conferred upon the people what 
 seemed to be a great immediate boon. The measure 
 did seem to confer upon the people privileges of a very 
 important kind, and of which, it was believed by many, 
 they had been unjustly deprived. Our preceding exa- 
 mination has shewn the incorrectness of this view. But, 
 
168 VETOISTS ENTERTAIN VARIOUS VIEWS. 
 
 at the period in question, much ignorance prevailed re- 
 garding the history and constitution of the Church of 
 Scotland. Of the eager supporters of the Veto, a mul- 
 titude were young and inexperienced clergymen, whose 
 views were not matured, who had been taught to regard 
 the constitutional restrictions of the popular will as un- 
 constitutional invasions of the popular rights, and in 
 whose ears the changes had been rung on some selected 
 and disjointed quotations from our early standards until 
 their generous enthusiasm was ready to adopt any mea- 
 sure which promised an enlargement of the people's in- 
 fluence, or, as they supposed, the restoration of privi- 
 leges of which they had been either fraudulently or vio- 
 lently deprived. The Veto presented a twofold aspect, 
 and was designed to effect a double purpose. It pro- 
 mised to be at once the defender of patronage, and the 
 extender of popular privileges. Some viewed it chiefly 
 under the one aspect; others chiefly or exclusively 
 under the other ; and it did not require a very 
 great exertion of skill on the part of those who in- 
 troduced and advocated it with the former view, to 
 command the cordial co-operation of those who were 
 disposed to value it only when considered in the 
 latter. 
 
 It possessed, moreover, the strong recommendation 
 of being a measure believed to be quite within the ac- 
 knowledged power of the Church to adopt. It was re- 
 presented, not as an innovation, but as the revival of 
 the Church's ancient and constitutional practice. How 
 erroneous both these views were we have already seen ; 
 
CHARGE OF EASHKESS UNFOUNDED. 169 
 
 butj had not both been entertainedj the Veto never 
 would have been adopted. 
 
 There were those, indeed, who solemnly warned the 
 innovators that they were trenching on ground which 
 they had no right to invade, and from which, sooner or 
 later, they would be compelled to recede ; * but these 
 warnings were met by the distinct assurances of men of 
 the highest legal authority, that the measure proposed 
 was clearly within the Church's competency. But for 
 these assurances, we are safe in asserting that the step 
 would not have been taken. 
 
 Whatever mav have been the motives of the inventors 
 of the Veto law, their supporters cannot justly be 
 charged, as they^have often been, with rashness and 
 recklessness in according their support. That they 
 were in error, ere long became apparent; but their 
 error was one into which they had been led by men in 
 whose knowledge of the constitution they had every 
 reason to confide. They were misled, and that by such 
 authority as might well excuse the error into which they 
 fell. While it would be difficult to absolve them from 
 the charge of introducing an innovation unknown in the 
 
 * Both -within and from without the Church these warnings were given. 
 Referring to the proposal of passing the Veto Act, the late venerable Dr 
 M'Crie expressed himself as follows : " It tends to perpetuate patronage ; 
 and, ybr the first time, would give the formal sanction of the Church of Scot- 
 laud to what she has always pronounced to be a grievance, and an imposi- 
 tion at variance with her principles and ecclesiastical independence. It ap- 
 pears to me more than questionable, whether the restriction it imposes be 
 legal, and whether patrons may not resist its exercise." " It is not, in my 
 opinion, to the honour of the legislatiu-e, that the laws of the country should 
 be thus indirectly set aside, instead of their being regularly rescinded b}' 
 proper authority." 
 
170 EMINENT LAWYERS SUPPORT VETO. 
 
 previous history of the Church, the conduct of the sup- 
 porters of the measure admits of ample vindication from 
 the charge of wilful invasion of the civil province. 
 
 For how stands the case ? " The Church was coun- 
 tenanced and encouraged in adopting it^ by the most emi- 
 nent legal advice, and by the authority of the 
 
 LEGAL AND POLITICAL ADVISERS OF THE CrOWN IN 
 
 Scotland." * ^ 
 
 Besides that of other eminent lawyers, she had the 
 counsel of her own legal adviser and of the honourable 
 judge who introduced the measure to the Assembly of 
 1834, and who pledged his high professional reputation 
 on the legality of the Act. " And she had the express 
 advice and sanction of those who were not only the 
 responsible legal advisers of the Crown, but the YQQOg- 
 nised political organs of the executive Government of the 
 country." f The Assembly, in passing the Veto law, 
 acted with " the full concurrence of the Government of 
 the country." 
 
 Even of those who afterwards, upon more mature re- 
 flection and thorough investigation, were forced to adopt 
 a different view, there were many who, at the time, were 
 satisfied both of the legality and the expediency of the 
 Act. Among these we may reckon one of no less emi- 
 nence than Lord Brougham, at the time Lord Chan- 
 cellor of England, who, on 23d July 1834, shortly after 
 the passing of the Act, thus expressed himself in his 
 place in Parliament with reference to the measure : — 
 " My Lords, I hold in my hands a great number of pe- 
 * Remonstrance, p. 40. f Ibid., pp. 41, 42. 
 
LORD BROUGHAM FAVOURS IT. 171 
 
 titions, from a most respectable portion of his Majesty's 
 subjects in the northern parts of this island, all referring 
 to one subject — I mean Church patronage in Scotland, 
 which has greatly and powerfully interested the people 
 of Scotland for many months past, and respecting the 
 expediency of some change in which, there is hardly any 
 difference of opinion among them. The late proceed- 
 ings in the General Assembly (the passing of the Veto) 
 have done more to facilitate the adoption of measures 
 which shall set that important question at rest, upon a 
 footing advantageous to the community, and that shall 
 be safe and beneficial to the Establishment, and in every 
 respect desirable, than any other course that could be 
 taken ; for it would have been premature if the legisla- 
 ture had adopted any measure without the acquiescence 
 of that important body, as no good could have resulted 
 from it. I am glad that the wisdom of the General 
 Assembly has been directed to this subject, and that 
 the result of its deliberations has been those important 
 resolutions which were passed at the last meeting." 
 
 Lord Campbell also, at a much later period, ex- 
 pressed himself not less distinctly to the effect, " that 
 his opinion was, at one time, in favour of the Veto Act 
 of the Church, though he had changed his opinion, and 
 had come to regard it as unreasonable in not securing 
 the actual majority of a parish from having an unaccep- 
 table minister placed over them, while a very suitable 
 person might be capriciously rejected." 
 
 More need not be said to prove that the supporters 
 of this measure cannot justly be accused of rashly in- 
 
172 GOVERNMENT FAVOURS IT. 
 
 vadlng the civil jurisdiction, in giving it their support. 
 They had the countenance and advice of the highest 
 legal authority. No man need be ashamed to acknow- 
 ledge that, until the decision in the Auchterarder case, 
 he believed in the legality of the Veto law. It was a 
 belief which he held in common with men of the highest 
 eminence in the legal profession, with statesmen of no 
 mean note, with the responsible legal advisers of the 
 Crown, and the recognised organs of the executive 
 Government of the country. 
 
 Neither need any man be ashamed to admit that 
 though, on whatever grounds, at one time favourable 
 to the Veto, subsequent examination had convinced 
 him that it was an Act both unconstitutional and sub- 
 versive of the true principle of non-intrusion, as recog- 
 nised by the Church of Scotland. At the same time, 
 it is not to be wondered at that some were tardy 
 in reaching, and others in proclaiming, their convic- 
 tion that the Act in question had been discovered to be 
 unconstitutional. Having committed themselves to a 
 measure supported by such authority, they would have 
 laid themselves open to the charge of rashness and in- 
 discretion, had they formally abandoned it on their 
 first suspicions, or even until their suspicions had be- 
 come well-founded convictions. It is easy now to 
 maintain that their duty was immediately to press the 
 rescinding of an ecclesiastical Act, because that Act 
 had been declared to be in violation of the civil 
 statutes, and an infringment on civil rights. Such 
 was, indeed, the opinion of many, even of those who 
 
HESITATION AS TO RESCINDING. 173 
 
 had consented to the passing of the Veto. It was dis- 
 tinctly the opinion of the writer of these pages, an 
 opinion of which he made no concealment, as many can 
 testify, both of those who have remained attached to 
 the Establishment, and of those who were ultimately 
 led to secede. But candour will compel every reflect- 
 ing man to admit that it was not to be wondered at, 
 that others, even though sharing the same convictions, 
 should, in the circumstances, be inclined to pause. In 
 legislative reforms, real or supposed, it is at all times an 
 awkward, and, sometimes, not a safe thing, to retro- 
 grade. It was considered by many even of those who 
 had begun to perceive that the Veto was at best but a 
 questionable mode of w^orking out the non-intrusion 
 principle, that, nevertheless, it w^as a measure from 
 which, if legalised, good results might be expected, 
 and that, if the hope of its legalisation could be enter- 
 tained, it was not their duty to abandon it. Now, they 
 had not unreasonable o^rounds for entertainins^ that hope. 
 Immediately after the Auchterarder decision, the 
 Assembly had resolved to suspend the operation of the 
 Veto, by ordaining that all cases of disputed settlement 
 should be referred to the next Assembly. This, in the 
 opinion of the parties referred to, relieved them from 
 the unseemly attitude of direct resistance to the law ; 
 and they felt that, with this concession, it was not only 
 unnecessary, but might have been injurious, to press 
 for the immediate and formal abrogation of an Act 
 which many considerations led them to believe might 
 speedily receive the sanction of the legislature. 
 
174 REASONS FOR HESITATION. 
 
 The measure, as we have said, had been passed, not 
 only with the advice of the most eminent legal authori- 
 ties, but with the express concurrence of the legal and 
 political advisers of the Crown. The Government was, 
 therefore, committed to the measure ; and surely, in such 
 a case, unsuspecting clergymen were not to be much 
 blamed for cherishing, with some degree of confidence, 
 the hope that the Government would exert themselves 
 in the matter. " The Veto law," to use the words of 
 Dr. Buchahan, " had been passed by the Assembly in 
 1834, with the express concurrence of the Scottish law 
 officers of the Crown. If the Church had erred in 
 believing that this law made no invasion of the legal 
 rights of patrons, she erred in common with the high- 
 est authorities she could consult upon the question. 
 Even, therefore, if it had not been as it was, — substan- 
 tially the same ministry and the same political party 
 that were still in power in 1839, — the circumstances 
 now stated would have entitled the Church to expect 
 the prompt assistance of the Government in extricating 
 a great national institution from difficulties growing out 
 of a measure to which the proper legal advisers of that 
 Government had given their deliberate sanction." * 
 
 Still more, and what vindicates the reasonableness of 
 the hope then entertained, there was produced, at the 
 Commission in August, an official communication from 
 the Queen's representative, intimating the strong desire 
 both of Lord Melbourne and Lord John Russell, to 
 effect a satisfactory settlement of the question, and 
 
 * Ten Years' Couilict, vol. ii., p. G3. 
 
REFUSAL TO LEGALISE \T:T0. 175 
 
 their purpose of introducing a measure with that view ; 
 and in the meantime, " their intention of making such 
 arrangements as would enable the Queen's patronage to 
 be exercised according to the Veto law." 
 
 These considerations, we venture to think, will go 
 far to vindicate, in the judgment of reflecting men, the 
 conduct even of those who, though dissatisfied with many 
 of the movements now in contemplation by the domi- 
 nant party in the Church, and beginning to perceive 
 both the innovating character of the Veto, and its un- 
 fitness to secure the true non-intrusion of the Church 
 of Scotland, yet did not feel themselves, in the circum- 
 stances, warranted to press the rescinding of the Act. 
 
 From whatever cause — whether from "want of 
 parliamentary strength," or because more careful con- 
 sideration had led to a change of views, or because the 
 new and formidable element of spiritual independence 
 had emero;ed and was beo'inninsr to assume a mao-nitude 
 which cast all others into the shade, and shewed that 
 no mere measure of non-intrusion, however liberal, 
 would meet the exigencies of the case — certain it is that 
 the Government altogether failed to redeem the pledge 
 which they were considered to have virtually given. 
 
 The cause of this failure has been traced to the 
 efforts of the moderate party in the Church, and 
 reflections, not free from bitterness, have been cast on 
 some of their leading men, because, in a case w^hich 
 their brethren had declared to be with them one of 
 conscience, they would not agree to sacrifice what is 
 represented as, on their part, a point not of principle 
 
176 MODERATE PARTY UNJUSTLY BLAMED. 
 
 but expediency, and unite in petitioning the legislature 
 for a measure such as their former opponents could 
 adopt. The charge is not well founded. In a matter 
 of mere expediency, a chivalrous spirit might have 
 prompted them to make such a sacrifice to save their 
 l^rethren from the guilt of schism. But knowing, as 
 they did, that these brethren had entered the Church 
 at a time when, according to their own interpretation 
 of it, the fundamental principle which was alleged to be 
 the matter of conscience, was not practically recognised, 
 and had not been acted on in the case of any one of 
 their own settlements, they could not persuade them- 
 selves that their brethren were not mistaken in suppos- 
 ing that, in supporting the Veto, or any modification of 
 it, their consciences would compel them to abandon the 
 Church of their fathers. The result shewed that they 
 were mistaken as to the numbers who would ultimately 
 forsake the Church. But, at the same time, as we have 
 already seen, it was really on another and a very dif- 
 ferent principle that the secession was actually made. 
 
 Besides, in the apprehension of the leaders of the 
 moderate party, the principles for which they contended 
 were somewhat more than those of mere expediency. 
 They held and maintained that the measures of their 
 opponents were not merely innovations, but innovations 
 subversive of what they believed to be the constitution 
 of the Church, and, although, when forced upon them 
 by stern majorities, they could submit to them under a 
 solemn protest, just as, under a similar protest, the 
 opposite party had done in many instances, it was as- 
 
PROBABLE CAUSES OF REFUSAL. 177 
 
 suredly too much to expect that, in the face of their 
 own solemn protests, they would, even for the sake of 
 unity, join their brethren in promoting a measure which 
 they believed to be unconstitutional and injurious. 
 And even although it were proved that the opposition 
 of these men prevented the introduction of the pro- 
 mised healing measure on the part of Government, 
 there w^otdd be no good grounds for the aspersions 
 which have been cast on them, as having cruelly and 
 even wantonly driven their brethren to the fatal leap, 
 or at least prevented the opening through which they 
 had hoped to escape. 
 
 But it is much more probable that one or other, or 
 rather a combination, of the causes already enumerated, 
 operated to hinder the Government from attempting to 
 legislate. There was on their part, at the time, a con- 
 viction of the " want of parliamentary strength." Then, 
 there may have been a change of views as to the Yeto 
 itself. This, as we have seen, was the case w^ith Lord 
 Brougham and Lord Campbell. It was the case with 
 multitudes who had begun to perceive that, besides 
 being an innovation, it really did not make full provi- 
 sion for the security of non-intrusion, but, on the con- 
 trary, might permit the wishes of a majority to be 
 thwarted by the caprice of a few. Above all, the views 
 which had now begun to be maintained on the subject 
 of spiritual independence, were such as to w^arrant the 
 refusal to interfere. The maintaining of the extrava- 
 gant opinions wiiich we have already examined, w^as a 
 barrier to all attempts at hopeful legislation. And 
 
178 LEGISLATION PREVENTED. 
 
 henceforth, accordingly, while the leading men, of hoth 
 parties in the state, expressed their anxiety for a satis- 
 factory settlement of the great Church question, none 
 would venture to interfere. They insisted on the re- 
 scinding of the illegal Veto as a preliminary condition, 
 and that, as Dr. Buchanan observes, would, in the cir- 
 cumstances, have amounted to an abandonment of their 
 all-absorbing principle. Many expressed themselves as 
 willing to support non-intrusion. All refused to sanc- 
 tion the dogma, as then held, of spiritual independence. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Men's eyes opening to the true character of the Veto— New Phase of the 
 Controversy — Severe Trial to many — Veto discovered to be not a true 
 Non- Intrusion Measure — Confidence shaken — Many abandon the Leaders 
 as the Tendency of their Efforts becomes Developed — Dr. Chalmers would 
 Repeal the Veto — Indecision of many — Charge of Inconsistency. 
 
 Although, for the reasons stated in the preceding 
 chapter, no public movement was, for a time, made on 
 the part of such of the former supporters of the Veto 
 as had begun to perceive its unconstitutional nature, 
 and its defects as a measure for working out the non- 
 intrusion principle, the spirit of inquiry had been fully- 
 awakened, and the numbers of inquirers were rapidly 
 increasing. The discussions in the General Assembly, 
 at and after the passing of the Veto, had awakened the 
 suspicions of some ; the discussions in the civil courts, 
 both in Edinburojh and before the court of last resort, 
 had tended to confirm these and to awaken the suspi- 
 cions of many more, that, notwithstanding the high, 
 and, in many respects, the well-founded pretensions of 
 those who had assumed the leadership in Church affairs, 
 a system of self-deception had been practised, under 
 the influence of which the lights of history had been 
 obscured, and statutes misapplied, and the views of the 
 founders of our Church misrepresented, and our stan- 
 dards, upon the points in question, misinterpreted. 
 
180 SUSPICIONS AWAKENED. 
 
 How far these suspicions were well founded our preced- 
 inir examination has declared. 
 
 The discovery, meanwhile, became to those who w^erc 
 making it, a trial of no ordinary magnitude. It was 
 painful to have one's confidence shaken in the accuracy 
 and judgment and prudence of those whom he had been 
 taucfht to consider as the masters in Israel — to be com- 
 pelled to admit that the measures, adopted to secure 
 the people's privileges, were the very measures which 
 the constitution forbade — to refuse to move one other 
 step in company with those with whom he had been 
 privileged to associate — to observe, on the part of vene- 
 rated friends and fathers, a growing assumption of 
 spiritual power, such as our early reformers had sternly 
 repudiated, and a grasping after those same claims 
 which, in times of civil anarchy, had been put forth and 
 acted on, to the subversion of liberty and the ruin of 
 the Church. 
 
 There were many, indeed, who shrunk from the in- 
 quiry and lulled their suspicions, and only bound them- 
 selves, with firmer tenacity, to that bold leadership 
 which was ready both to think and act for its adherents, 
 and who thus secured their boasted consistency at the 
 charge of their real independence. Others continued 
 their adherence, amidst many misgivings, until, step by 
 step, the tendency of their principles became more and 
 more developed, and they were startled at conse- 
 quences, natural, indeed, but previously unperceivcd, 
 which compelled them to review, and having revicAved, 
 to reject, the principles from which they flowed. 
 
PATH OF DUTY BECOMES DISTmCT. 181 
 
 To those who had taken their stand, and who re- 
 solutely refused to submit to a dictation which now was 
 threatening to lead to consequences, not only injurious, 
 but destructive to the Establishment, the path of duty 
 was becoming more and more distinct. It was seen that 
 the Veto ought to be abandoned, not only as having been 
 found by the supreme civil court, under the Church's 
 own appeal, to be a violation of civil statute and an in- 
 fringement on civil rights secured by statute, but as itself 
 not consistent with the constitution and practice of the 
 Church, and not fitted to give just effect to the true 
 principle of non-intrusion. To the second of these 
 points we have already adverted, and confirmed the 
 truth of the statement by authorities not easy to be 
 disputed. The third is capable of easy proof. It is 
 that to which Lord Campbell adverted, when, in 1842, 
 he stated that he had changed his opinion of the mea- 
 sure, and " had come to regard it as unreasonable, in 
 not securing the actual majority of a parish from having 
 an unacceptable minister placed over them, while a very 
 suitable person might be capriciously rejected." 
 
 By giving to a simple majority of the male heads of 
 families in a parish, the right of rejecting any presentee, 
 without reason assigned, it is demonstrable, on the one 
 hand, that in many cases a very insignificant minority 
 of the parishioners, or a small minority even of the 
 communicants, might prevent the settlement of a 
 minister anxiously desired by the great body both of 
 parishioners and communicants ; and, on the other 
 hand, that if that insignificant minority did not object. 
 
182 VETO DOES NOT SECURE NON-INTRUSION. 
 
 a presentee might be intruded on the large reclaiming 
 majority, there being for them no defence against the 
 perpetration of the deed, unless they should be able to 
 state satisfactory reasons, which, according to the essen- 
 tial theory of the Veto, it was unreasonable to expect, 
 and cruel and humiliating to ask them to do. 
 
 At an early period of this controversy, the author, in 
 preparing an address to his people on this subject, had 
 occasion to institute a pretty extensive induction of 
 cases illustrative of this point. He selects the follow- 
 ing, as clearly demonstrative of his assertion. In a 
 congregation numbering nine hundred and forty com- 
 municants, the male heads of families having right to 
 object amounted to about two hundred and forty. If 
 of these a bare majority — or one hundred and twenty- 
 one — objected to a presentee desired by all the rest, 
 these one hundred and twenty-one objectors could, 
 without reason assigned, thwart the wishes, not only 
 of the remaining eight hundred and nineteen communi- 
 cants, but of all the other parishioners having interest. 
 And, on the other hand, if these one hundred and 
 twenty-one did not object, nothing could prevent the 
 intrusion of the presentee, however unacceptable to the 
 eight hundred and nineteen and to the parish at large, 
 unless they — the overwhelming majority — were pre- 
 pared to give in, and to substantiate reasons to the 
 satisfaction of the Presbytery, — a thing which, accord- 
 ing to the theory, it was quite unreasonable to suppose 
 them capable of doing. 
 
 In another congregation, numbering eight hundred 
 
CASES IN PKOOF. 183 
 
 and sixty-four communicants, the number of male heads 
 of families amounted to two hundred and fifty-six. In 
 another, the proportion of heads of families to communi- 
 cants was one hundred and sixty-one out of seven hun- 
 dred and eighty. In another, the numbers were three 
 hundred communicants, and fifty male heads of families. 
 In some of the Highland districts, the proportion 
 between the enfranchised and the disenfranchised, under 
 the Veto, was even more striking, and the injustice per- 
 petrated more conspicuous. " In confining the right 
 of dissent to male heads of families being communi- 
 cants," says Dr. Bryce, "the state of not a few 
 parishes in the North and West Highlands of Scotland 
 was overlooked. Although, in some of these parishes, 
 the population belonging to the Established Church 
 amounted to perhaps sixteen hundred or two thousand, 
 the communicants did not number beyond ten or 
 twenty ; such singular and perverted notions prevail- 
 ing on the subject of taking the Sacrament, as to keep 
 back from the holy table those who, in other parts of 
 Scotland, and under a more wholesome teaching of 
 their ministers, would be found coming forward. To 
 place in the hands of ten or twenty individuals, the 
 power of vetoing a presentee, and defeating the rights 
 of the patron, under the pretext that the Church was 
 observant of the rule, that ' no pastor shall be intruded 
 on a congregation contrary to the will of the people,' 
 was in its face sufficiently preposterous. To maintain 
 and respect a rule, the eifect of which might be to ex- 
 trude the acceptable and the suitable of a thousand 
 
184 EFFECTS OF THE DISCOVERY. 
 
 parishioners, upon the unreasonable dissent of half-a- 
 dozen, was equally absurd. Such, however, was after- 
 wards discovered to be the actual result in at least one 
 instance, where the General Assembly found itself com- 
 pelled to give effect to the veto of five parishioners, 
 being communicants, keeping out the presentee who 
 was desired by two thousand." * 
 
 When, upon calm reflection, it was discovered that 
 such was the true nature of that measure into which, 
 by the influence of men of high authority, they had 
 been hurried, was it at all wonderful that even those 
 who had been most anxious to secure the people's 
 rights should refuse to become parties to the en- 
 dangering of the existence of the Church for the sake 
 of so questionable a benefit? Was it to be won- 
 dered at, that they should peremptorily withdraw from 
 those who seemed determined to risk the existence oi 
 the Establishment for an invention now known to have 
 been introduced very much for the purpose of uphold- 
 ing patronage, and discovered, at the same time, to be 
 incapable of securing non-intrusion? The wonder 
 rather is that many more did not refuse all further 
 
 * Ten Tears of the Church, vol. i., p. 33. " In many northern parishes, 
 with populations of several thousands, and scarcely a handful of avowed 
 dissenters, the communicants in connexion with the Church did not exceed 
 from 100 to 200. When the Veto law required that a roll of male heads of 
 families in communion with the Church should be kci)t by each Kirk-ses- 
 sion, it was common to find, in a population of some 2000 and upwards, a 
 list of from thirteen to twenty." — The Church and her Accuser in the Far 
 North, p. 17. " In Daviot, which had been absolutely ruled by ' the Men, 
 there were just eleven male heads of families on tlie roll of Clmrch members, 
 the number of inhabitants being sixteen himdred and eighty-one^ — Fanati- 
 cism in the North, p. 21. 
 
CONFIDENCE SHAKEN. 185 
 
 adherence to those leaders who seemed, at all hazards, 
 determined to push matters to extremity. But the 
 tendencies of the leading men were not yet understood. 
 The full consequences of their measures were not fore- 
 seen, even by themselves. They had assumed a posi- 
 tion, the extent and bearings of which they did not at 
 the time appreciate, but from which, when these were 
 discovered, they felt that their public consistency 
 obliged them not to retire. And it w^as only as the real 
 nature of their principles became more and more deve- 
 loped by unexpected events, and the legitimate results of 
 these began more and more clearly to emerge, that one 
 and another of their adherents, observing the perilous 
 shore to which the vessel was drifting, began to ques- 
 tion the accuracy of the compass and the chart by 
 which they had been steering, and the competency of 
 the pilots, who seemed to have mistaken Voluntaryism 
 for Non-intrusion, and were determined to obey no in- 
 structions but such as their own wisdom should suggest, 
 or their own prudence approve. 
 
 The confidence of multitudes was shaken ; but, dis- 
 trusting their own judgment, and still according much 
 to the superior skill and wisdom and high character of 
 the leaders, or fearing the reproach of an acknowledg- 
 ment that they had been deceived, and the imputation 
 of motives of a discreditable kind, many continued, 
 hoping against hope, to yield a feeble acquiescence — a 
 passive acquiescence, maintained by some — until at 
 last the great catastrophe, looming before them, warned 
 them of the madness and the s^uilt of makin^^ a sacri- 
 
186 LINGERERS. 
 
 fice SO great for principles which they did not hold, and 
 in support of a measure which covered only a paltry 
 fragment of a principle — nay, which was now seen to 
 be capable of defeating the very purpose for wdiich they 
 had been induced so long to give it their support. And 
 others, alas! continued their wavering acquiescence, 
 buoyed up with hopes, skilfully fostered, yet necessarily 
 doomed to disappointment, until at last they found them- 
 selves entangled in a net from which escape was hopeless. 
 I speak advisedly when I say, that, among the numbers 
 who swelled the ranks of the Secession on the day of 
 their departure from the Church of their fathers, there 
 were many in whose case the plaudits of admiring mul- 
 titudes failed to still the stern whisperings of conscience, 
 questioning the character of the deed which they had 
 done — many whom even the sweet incense of freely- 
 tendered applause could not convince that their own 
 deed was not one more of pride than of principle, and 
 who, in the brief intervals of their excitement and of 
 the urgent cares which now were pressing on them, did 
 not tremble at the consequences — the fearful possible 
 consequences — which their deed of schism might yet 
 produce. 
 
 Meanwhile, however, it was the opinion of many 
 even of the Vetoists, that the Act, now ascertained to 
 be illegal, ought to be rescinded. This, for the time, 
 w^as the deliberate view of the venerated Chalmers him- 
 self. In his pamphlet, entitled " What ought the 
 Church and the People of Scotland now to do 1 " pub- 
 lished in 1840, he says — " We may now be said certainly 
 
DR. CHALMEES WOULD EEPEAL THE VETO. 187 
 
 and conclusively to have failed in obtaining the ratifi- 
 cation of the Veto law at the hands of Parliament, and 
 what is now the Church's proper outgoing from the 
 position in which she of course finds herself? We 
 have no hesitation in saying that the first step of such 
 an outgoing is to repeal the Veto law. There is no in- 
 consistency here — the inconsistency wxre all on the 
 other side in persevering with the law. Had we known 
 beforehand that we should thereby incur the loss of the 
 temporalities in every parish where it was carried into 
 eifect, we should not have enacted it : but we know 
 this now; and on the very same principle, when all 
 prospect of a legislative sanction is at an end, we 
 should, on the first opportunity, that is, at the next 
 meeting of the General Assembly — that is, should 
 there then be no better prospect of obtaining a change 
 of the civil law than now — proceed to rescind it. 
 
 The FIRST thing, then, which in our 
 
 estimation the Church ought to do, is to repeal the 
 Veto law." * 
 
 Such was the clear and deliberate opinion of Chal- 
 mers. From the first, the Veto was not the form which 
 he would have preferred of the measure for securing 
 non-intrusion. From the first he would also have 
 chosen a civil rather than an ecclesiastical law upon 
 the subject. " It was decidedly my own feeling, that, 
 if any new relation between the will of the people and 
 that of the patron was to be defined and regulated by a 
 law, it were better that it should be done by a civil 
 
 * Pp. 45, 46. 
 
138 CONTROVERSY ASSUMING NEW PHASE. 
 
 law than by an ecclesiastical." * From this opinion, 
 no doubt, he afterwards resiled, driven from it — though 
 not by the judgment — by certain of the dicta of the 
 judges in the Auchterarder case. It was an opinion, 
 however, which was gaining ground with many, and 
 that, too, based on a foundation which these dicta could 
 not touch. There were many who w^ould not be deter- 
 red from abandoning what had been proved and was 
 acknowledged to be wrong, merely because extra-judi- 
 cial views had been expressed, which seemed to threaten 
 some other positions which might be taken up. 
 
 But, in reality, the controversy was now assuming its 
 new and more important phase. Though the people's 
 rights was still the w^atchword, the Church's power w^as 
 the real object of the contest. The Yeto was felt to be 
 a "blunder" — it was acknowledged to be unconstitu- 
 tional — it had been declared to be illegal — it had been 
 pronounced to be an act ultra vires of the Church. The 
 " blunder " would have been remedied, the unconstitu- 
 
 * What ought the Church and People now to do? p. 6. Dr. Chalmers 
 was not the only man of note among the Non-intrusionists who demurred to 
 the Veto. We have already quoted the testimony of Mr. Hamilton as to 
 the difficulties of the anti-patronage party in general. The following 
 statement of Mr. Dunlop, in the Assembly 1835, is very clear and instruc- 
 tive : " He had supported the Act and Overture of last year (the Veto), 
 though Avith much hesitation, having previously entertained an opinion 
 hostile to it, and he had since returned to his first opinion, and accordingly 
 had not voted this year for passing it into a standing law. His objection 
 to it was that it did not give efficiency to the call, Avhich was the only con- 
 stitutional mode for the people to express their will in the settlement of a 
 pastor, while it introduced another principle, the Veto, which, besides being 
 attended with many evils in practical operation, from which the call was 
 free, was erroneous in principle, in so far as it acknowledged the presenta- 
 tion by the patron to be a title not only to the benefice, but also to the 
 jmstoral office." 
 
INDECISIO^\ 189 
 
 tlonal deed would have been corrected — only, to have 
 so acted, would have been an acknowledgment that the 
 deed was ultra vires — an abandonment of the assump- 
 tion of the Church's omnipotence. The Veto must be 
 upheld, not so much to secure the people's rights, as to 
 declare the Church's power to confer these rights. It 
 was now becoming a contest not for the people's privi- 
 leges, but for the Church's supremacy. To this the eyes 
 of many were being opened ; and, while some still con- 
 tinued to give a reluctant assent to the demands of the 
 leadership, others refused to take one further step in the 
 ruinous course to which they pointed. There were 
 some, and these not a few, who halted between two opi- 
 nions. They murmured their disapproval both of the 
 measures adopted and the spirit sometimes manifested 
 by those whom they had been wont to follow. They 
 never anticipated, they never calculated on, a seces- 
 sion from the Churcli of Scotland. ThouMi now alive 
 to its defects, they w^ould have hailed with gratitude a 
 legislative confirmation of the Veto, as the means of 
 eflfecting some good, and especially of restoring peace to 
 a distracted Church. They were led to hope for this or 
 an equivalent. They w^ere taught to believe that, pro- 
 vided only no faltering should be exhibited, the Govern- 
 ment of the country must, sooner or later, yield. And, 
 although a measure very different from that of the Veto 
 could have been conscientiously submitted to — nay, by 
 many of them, would have been much preferred — they 
 were thus prevented from giving loud expression to their 
 sentiments ; deterred by the fear of only increasing diffi- 
 
190 THE ALTEENATIVE. 
 
 culties which were becoming more and more perplex- 
 ing. We by no means laud their indecision, but nei- 
 ther do we venture uncharitably to judge their conduct. 
 The circumstances in which they were placed were suf- 
 ficiently embarrassing. Their conduct is suceptible of 
 distinct explanation, on principles which cast no reflec- 
 tion either on their judgment or their conscientiousness. 
 Some of them ultimately made up their minds to cast in 
 their lot with those who seceded from the Church ; but 
 they did so, not without a struggle, and not without 
 compunctions which it required many an effort to 
 master — if indeed they be altogether mastered yet. 
 Others of them maintained their attachment to the 
 Church of their fathers. Their eyes became more and 
 more open to the real tendency of those claims to inde- 
 pendence which now began to be broadly assumed. 
 One after another took his stand, and presented an at- 
 titude of resistance to the current of innovation. And 
 when, at length, the choice came distinctly to be be- 
 tween schism on the one hand, and adherence, on the 
 other, to the Church under an attainable measure which 
 secured the privileges of the people to an extent as great 
 as had ever been acknowledged, and greater than in 
 practice had been recognised in the settlements either of 
 the leaders themselves or of the vast majority of their 
 votaries — nay, which, to all practical purposes, might 
 secure non-intrusion inviolate* — they felt that, under 
 
 * Such we believe to be the true character of the Scotch Benefices Act. 
 If under that Act the Church do not maintain the true principle of non-in- 
 trusion, the fault will be her own. Such is the full liberty which under that 
 
INCONSISTENCY. 191 
 
 the solemn obligation of their ordination vows, and with 
 scriptural views of the great sin of schism, one only 
 course remained, and that course they followed, in spite 
 of the taunts of former brethren, and the jeerings of an 
 ignorant and misled multitude. 
 
 These men have been charged with acting an incon- 
 sistent part. Perhaps the charge is just as applied to 
 some among them, but we are firmly convinced that 
 their inconsistency was in no respect equal to the in- 
 consistency of those who, holding high anti-patronage 
 views, supported a measure framed "undoubtedly to 
 preserve, not to put down, the right of patronage " — 
 who, holding, as by themselves explained, the funda- 
 mental principle of non-intrusion, clung, as if for life 
 itself, to a measure which, instead of supporting, in- 
 vaded it — who, holding, as by themselves explained, 
 the principle of spiritual independence, appealed a 
 cause ecclesiastical to the highest civil court; and, 
 again, having lost that cause, spurned obedience to 
 the judgment, as illegal and incompetent — who, hold- 
 ing it to be the duty of the civil magistrate to support 
 and establish the true Church, maintaining inviolate 
 
 Act she enjoys, that by her own regulations she may sometimes seem to 
 trench on the people's privileges. By these regulations she may excite and 
 uphold a system so cumbrous and expensive as to put unnecessary obstacles 
 in the way of parishioners oflFering objections to unacceptable presentees. 
 If she do so, it is because she wills it — not because the law enjoins it. The 
 tendency, however, is the other way; and were it not so, public opinion 
 would now go far to control it. The Church needs no new external law to 
 secure her fundamental principle. But, shoidd such a law be demanded by 
 the members of the Church, it is to be hoped that a measure will be sought 
 for at least more liberal than that feeble abortion, pertinacious adherence to 
 which cost the Church the loss of so many of her sons. 
 
192 INCONSISTENCY. 
 
 both its (loctrme and discipline, yet refused to the 
 magistrate the correlative right of looking at the doc- 
 trine and discipline as established, and taking order to 
 prevent its corruption and overthrow — who entered 
 the Church under a system of practical intrusion, yet 
 left it professedly on the opposite principle — who main- 
 tained that the pastoral relationship could not be justly 
 formed except on principles entirely different from 
 those in which the relationship between themselves 
 and their respective flocks had been formed^ — who 
 sio^ned the Confession of Faith with no reservation as 
 to chap, xxiii., sect. 4, yet denounced the Church of 
 Scotland as Erastian. 
 
 These and many more inconsistencies might be enu- 
 merated. And if a change or modification of opinion 
 is to be so characterised, there were perhaps no parties 
 in the Church against whom the charge might not be 
 substantiated, there being, as was to be expected, few 
 if any, whose views on some important points did not 
 undergo modification during the progress of the con- 
 troversy and of that eventful period in the history of 
 the Church.* 
 
 * The charge of inconsistency is sometimes a ver}'^ foolish one. " It has 
 never been mentioned to the reproach of Father Augustine, that he saw it 
 needful, ere he died, to write a book of retractations. ' Yea, what is every 
 year of a man's life,' to use the expression of IMr. Pope, in one of his letters, 
 'but a censure or critique on the past? ' This, indeed, bears hard upon our 
 pride, and clips the budding wings of our beloved fame; but so much the 
 i)etter for us. That may be the most needful and beneficial tiling that can 
 befall us. In such cases, we are chiefly to consider what is due to the cause 
 of truth, and to our own minds; and, being satisfied as to this, all other 
 things, such as the consequences that may follow, or the sentiments that 
 others may form of our conduct, must be held of inferior moment.''— Letter 
 of Professor Bruce to Dr. irCrie, Life ofVr. JlPCrie, p. 77. 
 
INCONSISTENCY. 193 
 
 If a failure to act up to the full extent of avowed 
 principles warrants the charge of inconsistency, the 
 moderate party, according to Dr. Bryce, were again 
 and again open to the charge.* 
 
 * Again and again does the reverend Doctor repeat his complaint, — e. ^., 
 " This motion, on the moderate side of the Assembly (in the case of the 
 Strathbogie brethren), fell, as usual^ very much short of what the prin- 
 ciples which they had espoused called upon them to propose." — Vol. ii., 
 p. 98. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Cases referred to the Civil Courts — First Auchterarder Case — Forfeiture 
 of Fruits of the Benefice — Alleged Cases — Dift'erent Views may be enter- 
 tained of Cases of Alleged Interference by Civil Courts — Lethendy Case 
 — Same may happen in Churches not Established. 
 
 The principles explained in the former part of this 
 work, as those sanctioned by the constitution and held 
 by the founders of our Church and the leading men of 
 the Second Eeformation, do fully bear out the compe- 
 tency of the judgments pronounced in the Auchterarder 
 case. Till finally adjudicated on, doubts might be en- 
 tertained as to the meaning of certain statutes; and 
 even after these decisions were pronounced, men, in 
 the exercise of the rights of private judgment, might 
 imagine that a wrong construction had been put on 
 certain acts. They may have supposed that these 
 judgments had in effect altered the law. Still these 
 final judgments had authoritatively explained the 
 statutes — had fixed their meaning, if that was pre- 
 viously imagined to be doubtful — had, in short, become 
 law. This was obvious to all. To escape, however, 
 from the full effect of the ultimate judgment, and to 
 flatter themselves and their followers into the belief 
 that they were rendering full obedience to the decision 
 pronounced, while yet they refused to implement, or to 
 permit others to implement, the duty which the statute 
 
AUCHTERARDER CASE. 195 
 
 had been authoritatively declared to enjoin, the lawyer- 
 leaders helped their brethren to the discovery that, 
 however plainly worded the judgment of the supreme 
 civil court was, it could not possibly mean that the civil 
 statute enjoined the discharge of a spiritual duty, and 
 that, at all events, statutory provision had been made 
 for disobedience, inasmuch as it had been ordained 
 that the penalty, in such cases, should be simply the 
 forfeiture of the fruits of the benefice. 
 
 As to the former allegation, it is quite undeniable 
 that it assumes a doctrine w^hich our fathers, so far 
 from acknowledging, did stoutly repudiate. This we 
 have already shewn by ample and indisputable quota- 
 tion.* It assumes a doctrine inconsistent with the idea 
 of a civil establishment of religion. Then, the terms of 
 the statute are so plain, that even he that runs may read. 
 Presbyteries are " bound and astricted to receive and 
 admit whatsoever qualified presentee." If "receiving 
 and admitting " be a civil act, there can be no question 
 as to competency. If " receiving and admitting " be 
 a spiritual act, then the statute claims, what our 
 Reforming fathers never disputed, the right of enjoining 
 spiritual acts. It preserves, indeed, the Church's free- 
 dom, by enjoining the induction only of qualified pre- 
 sentees. Presbyteries being by statute the sole judges 
 of qualifications; but undoubtedly it prescribes, after 
 satisfactory trial of qualification, the ecclesiastical or 
 spiritual act of induction. 
 
 The second allegation was one of a very extraordi- 
 
 * Vide Chapter V. 
 
196 FRUITS OF BENEFICE. 
 
 nary character. It served Its purpose well. It satis- 
 fied the conscientious scruples of many a loyal Vetoist, 
 who else would have shrunk from what, but for this 
 ingenious discovery, would have seemed too palpable a 
 resistance to declared law. There were, it will be con- 
 fessed, plausible grounds for the opinion, the falsity of 
 which it required more careful examination to detect 
 than many were, at the time, in circumstances to 
 bestow. It seemed to be an opinion founded on statute, 
 and supported by so high authority, that the candid 
 will scarcely be inclined to pass a severe censure on 
 those who received it as correct, and felt disposed to 
 consider the judgment that overturned it as overstep- 
 ping those limits which both statute and custom had 
 prescribed. 
 
 The statute in question entitled the patron " to re- 
 tain the whole fruits of the benefice in his own hands, 
 in case the Presbytery should refuse to admit any 
 qualified minister presented by him." Founding on 
 this, it was argued that the legislature had made provi- 
 sion for cases of refusal on the part of Presbyteries to 
 admit qualified presentees, and that the " binding and 
 astricting" of the preceding Act of the same year 
 amounted to nothing more. This view was confirmed 
 by some eminent legal authorities. Crosbie, in his 
 "Thoughts on Patronage and Presentations," 1769, 
 says — "In the settlement of churches, the Church 
 courts retain, and must always retain, the power that 
 we have seen vested in them, of rejecting a presentee, 
 even though qualified, and of conferring the ministerial 
 
OPIXIOX OF CROSBIE AXD LORD KAMES. 197 
 
 office on another, though without the right of bestow- 
 ing the stipend." And Lord Karnes, a still higher 
 authority, entertained the same view — " The sentence 
 of ecclesiastical courts is ultimate, even where their 
 proceedings are illegal— the person authorised by their 
 sentence, even in opposition to the presentee, is, de facto, 
 minister of the parish. . . . The check provided by 
 law is, that a minister settled illegally shall not be en- 
 titled to the stipend." 
 
 Besides, it was alleged, that in addition to these 
 strong opinions, numerous decisions of the civil courts 
 could be referred to as confirmatory of the view — as 
 that of Dunse in 1735, of Unst in 17 y 4, and others, 
 which need not be specified. 
 
 Now, in these circumstances, it was not surprisino- 
 that many should adopt the view, that the only remedy 
 Avhich the law provided in cases of refusal on the part 
 of Presbyteries to induct presentees, on whatever 
 grounds, was the forfeiture of the fruits of the particu- 
 lar benefices. Lord Kames had not only declared this 
 to be the only check, but had lauded it as at once mild 
 and effectual. " The check is extremely mild, and yet 
 is fully effectual to prevent the abuse." Dr. Chalmers 
 held it to be a point indisputable. He seems to have 
 entertained the opinion that, in the case of an Estab- 
 lished Church, all that the State conferred was the 
 endowment, and that the withdrawing of that endow- 
 ment, in particular cases, was all that the State could 
 claim a right to do. How utterly opposite this view 
 was to that which our fathers held, both as to the duty 
 
198 PLAUSIBLE VIEW. 
 
 and the rights of the State, we have ah-eady seen.* 
 Still it was not to be wondered at that an opinion, so 
 authorised and so oft and so peremptorily reiterated, 
 should have taken a firm hold of the minds of many, 
 and led them to believe that, in determining to sm-ren- 
 der the fruits of the benefice, in disputed eases of set- 
 tlement, they were doing all that could be required as 
 loyal and obedient subjects. 
 
 The error which lay at the very foundation of these 
 opinions consisted in the fond persuasion that, both by 
 principle and by statute, the State was precluded from 
 at all interfering in spiritual matters, or enforcing, by 
 civil means, adherence on the part of churchmen to 
 prescribed ecclesiastical rules — that the State could not 
 compel the rulers of the Church to adhere to her own 
 constitution and discipline. This once granted as a 
 fundamental principle, the interpretation of statute 
 became a comparatively easy work — viewed through 
 
 * Dr. M'Crie, an authority, we venture to think, not inferior, on such a 
 subject, to Dr. Chalmers, so far from considering the endowment as the one 
 bond of connexion, or the conferring of the endowment as constituting the 
 establishment of the particular form of religion selected, held the endow- 
 ment to be merely a subsidiary arrangement. *' He was persuaded that the 
 Voluntary principle was not only untenable, but was incapable of defence, 
 except on grounds inconsistent with a belief in divine revelation, and indi- 
 rectly, but infallibly, leading to infidelity. . . . As to the endowment 
 of the Church, this he regarded merely as a subsidiary arrangement, highly 
 desirable where it could be obtained, but the expediency of which, in all 
 circumstances of a Church or State, he was not disposed to maintain." — 
 Life, p. 339. 
 
 A Church, indeed, may be established, though not endowed; and, on 
 the other hand, endowed, though not established. Our own Church was 
 established as the National Church before it received any real endowment; 
 in the Synod of Ulster, the Presbyterian Church is partially endowed, but 
 not established. 
 
GROUND OF ERROR. 199 
 
 this medium, and read in this light, no civil enactment 
 could be held to touch matters purely ecclesiastical.* 
 If, however, we look at the statute, apart from this 
 transforming medium, we arrive at a very different 
 interpretation ; and if authority be pleaded on the 
 one side, it can also be pleaded on the other. 
 
 Let us cite a witness or two, and observe their testi- 
 mony. Says Sir Henry Moncrieff: "No greater ab- 
 surdity can be imagined than that it could ever have 
 been in the contemplation of law, that a benefice 
 should, in any circumstances^ be separated from the pas- 
 toral cure to which it is attached. The examples in 
 which it has been so have arisen out of peculiar circum- 
 stances, which could not be in the view of the legis- 
 lature, and are therefore to be regarded as exceptions 
 from a general rule ; which, because they are excep- 
 tion, serve to confirm, and cannot subvert it ; and 
 which must, at least, be pronounced to be no precedents, 
 where the circumstances are not the same."t 
 
 Again, hear the very distinct testimony of Mr. 
 Dunlop, in 1833 : " The object of the State, in creating 
 
 * This false principle constitutes the foundation of the errors of the 
 modem school. It is the root whence they spring. It is inconsistent with 
 the true theory of an Establishment. It is the germ of Yoluntarjism, or, 
 rather, the Yolvintary theory already partially developed. That, through 
 this medium, the modem leaders read all civil enactments relating to the 
 Church, is virtually confessed in the Convocation Memorial ; where it is 
 admitted (p. 9) that " the provision is expressed in terms which, if directed 
 against any private party or civil corporation, would unquestionably have 
 imported a complete civil obligation to the performance of the specified 
 act," while yet it is considered impossible "to constme this provision as 
 importing a civil obligation when applied to the Church." 
 
 f Constitution of Established Church, p. 32. 
 
200 OPPOSING TESTIMONIES. 
 
 an Established Church, was to conjoin the patrimonial 
 rights of the benefice to the spiritual rights of the pastoral 
 charge, and establish an office which should combine 
 the two classes of rights in the same person ; and to 
 secure this, and at the same time preserve the former 
 rights of patrons, it is held to have been made a con- 
 dition of the endowment, that the Church should re- 
 ceive and admit the qualified presentees of lawful 
 patrons; while, on the other hand, the Church, by 
 accepting the endowment so regulated, became a party 
 to the object for which it was intended, and hound 
 herself to fulfil the condition whereby this was to be 
 effected. Nor will it do to maintain that it was un- 
 lawful for the civil power to prescribe such a condi- 
 tion whereby to fetter Church courts in the exercise of 
 their spiritual jurisdiction ; because, 1st, the Church 
 have submitted thereto by accepting the benefits 
 tendered by the State on that condition, while, had 
 they deemed the condition unlawful, they had it in 
 their power to have rejected the benefits therewith 
 clogged." * 
 
 It is obvious, therefore, that, if there were authorities 
 
 * The Law of Patronage, &c., by Alexander Dunlop, Esq., Advocate, 
 p. 122. Mr. Dunlop seems, since 1833, to have changed his views on this 
 and on other connected subjects. His is no isolated case. The progress of 
 the controversy forced many to modify or change their opinions. In the 
 preceding page of the same work from which we have quoted in the text, 
 he goes the length of the following statement: "The Church submitted to 
 an obligation (became bound to admit qualilied presentees), civil in respect 
 of its being contracted towards the civil power, and established by merely 
 civil ordinances. This civil obligation, then, may be by the civil power 
 prevented from being violated; and tliere seems nothing, therefore, to pre- 
 vent the supreme civil court from interdicting the proceedings of Presbyteries 
 iu violation of it, as to the admission of ministers.'''' 
 
EXAMINATION OF ACT. 201 
 
 on the one side, there were, even prior to the judg- 
 ment of the supreme court, authorities on the other 
 also. And if we go without prejudice to the statute 
 itself, and, apart from all legal commentary, view it in 
 the light which common sense affords, we shall not 
 encounter much difficulty in arriving at its import. 
 
 We are not at liberty to suppose that, of the two 
 Acts of 1592, the clause of the latter which gives to 
 patrons the right to vacant stipend until their pre- 
 sentees are inducted, was intended merely to interpret 
 the clause in the former which binds and astricts 
 Presbyteries to induct. Had such been its design, a 
 statement would have been made to that effect. Had 
 this been the penalty attached to disobedience by the 
 statute, the Act would have said so, more especially as 
 the penalty is of a natm'e so peculiar, attaching not to 
 the parties offending, but to other parties who might 
 have no connexion whatever with the offence.* The 
 Presbytery are the party offending, while the parish are 
 the party suffering the penalty. This surely is most 
 unlikely ; and it is also unlikely that of two Acts, 
 separate as these are, though passed in the same year, 
 the one should contain the injunction, and the other 
 the penalty of disobedience. 
 
 * We venture humbly to think that this \aew of the matter is absurd. 
 Considered in this light, the one clause does not interpret or supplement, 
 but virtually abrogates the other. Conjoin the clauses and the absurdity 
 becomes apparent: "Provided that Presbyteries shall be bound and 
 astricted to receive and admit whatsomever qualified presentee ; and, in case 
 the Presbj-tery refuses, it shall be lawful for the patron to retain the fruits 
 of the benefice." The Presbytery is hound and astricted^ and yet may re- 
 fuse ; and in the case of refusal, no means shall be applied but such as touch 
 parties in no way implicated in the act ! ! 
 
202 EXAMINATION OF ACT. 
 
 We may, however, consider the latter as designed to 
 supplement the former, providing indemnity to patrons 
 for the loss sustained until the statutory duty enjoined 
 by the former should be discharged. The two Acts are 
 distinct. The right conferred on the patron by the 
 second does not absolve from the duty enjoined by the 
 first. While, under the latter, the patron was receiv- 
 ing his indemnification, under the former the Presby- 
 tery was still bound and astricted to discharge its 
 statutory duty — a duty which, being enjoined by civil 
 statute, would necessarily be enforced by civil penal- 
 ties.* 
 
 This seems to be the natural import of these oft- 
 quoted Acts. The interpretation is obviously forced 
 which makes the one Act contain the duty and the 
 
 * Is not this the view indicated by the Secretary of State in his letter to 
 the Lord Advocate of Scotland (January 7, 1752), quoted and referred to in 
 the "Claim, Declaration, and Protest, by the General Assembly'"? "The 
 Government of the country," saj'S that authoritative document, " on behalf 
 of the Crown, in which the patronage (that of Lanark) was vested, recog- 
 nised the retention of the stipend by the patron as the onh' competent 
 remedy for a wrongful refusal to admit his presentee ; " the Secretarj' of 
 State having, in a letter to the Lord Advocate of Scotland (January 7, 
 1752), signified the pleasure of his Majesty, "directing and ordering his 
 Lordship to do everything necessary and competent by law, for asserting and 
 taking benefit in the present case, of the said right and privilege of patrons 
 by the law of Scotland, to retain the fruits of the benefice in their own 
 hands till their presentee he admitted.'''' These words which we have put in 
 italics clearly point to the view given in the text. So far from intimating 
 that " the retention of the stipend was the only competent remedy," they 
 imply that the statutory duty of admission was still incumbent. The re- 
 tention of the fruits of the benefice did not affect the rights of the presentee. 
 The law provided for his admisson ; it " bound and astricted " the Presby- 
 tery to admit him. It still, in the view of the Secretary of State, contem- 
 plated that act, meanwhile disposing of the fruits of the benefice until that 
 act should he completed. The temporary retention of the fruits did not ab- 
 solve from the duty, nor imply that the discharge of that duty might not 
 be enforced. 
 
ALLEGED DECISIONS. 203 
 
 other the alleged check or penalty. But, even although 
 admitted, it would never sustain the cumbrous infer- 
 ences attached to it. It would not vindicate the dis- 
 obedience. Willingness to undergo a penalty does not 
 change the character of the offence to which the penalty 
 is attached. It is morally wrong in any one to place him- 
 self in a position in which he is bound and astricted to 
 do a duty, with the determination of evading that duty 
 because the penalty is considered a light one. It will 
 not do to allege that the duty is one which ought not to 
 be imposed, and therefore should not be discharged ; for 
 the Church, by accepting the endowment, has bound 
 and astricted herself to do it. She is not merely bound 
 and astricted to relinquish the fruits of the benefice, 
 but to receive and admit the qualified presentee. The 
 admission, moreover, of a right to inflict any civil 
 penalty, is a giving up of the question — an abandon- 
 ment of the hiofh o^round assumed. And it is diflScult 
 to perceive how conscience should be less oflfended by a 
 claim to the right of inflicting a penalty in the shape of 
 a fine imposed on the endowment of an unoffending 
 parish, than by a claim to the right of inflicting one, 
 in the shape of a fine imposed on the stipends of a re- 
 cusant Presbytery. "No greater absurdity can be 
 imagined than that it should ever have been in the 
 contemplation of law, that a benefice should, in any 
 circumstances, be separated from the pastoral cure to 
 which it is attached." 
 
 As to the alleged decisions of the civil courts sup- 
 posed to be confirmatory of the opposite view, it is suf- 
 
204 CASES MISRErKESENTED. 
 
 ficient to remark, that no parallel can be fairly insti- 
 tuted between them and cases occurring under the Veto 
 law. They were either cases of disputed presentations, 
 or cases in which the Presbytery supposed themselves 
 to have the right of presentation, jwe devoluto. ^' There 
 are, indeed, two solitary examples, since the restoration 
 of patronage in the last century," says Sir Henry Mon- 
 criefF, " in which the patron did retain the fruits of the 
 benefices, after the decision of the Assembly refusing 
 to admit their presentees. In those cases other in- 
 cumbents w^ere admitted, who were found to be the 
 legal ministers of the parishes, though they were ulti- 
 mately deprived of the stipends belonging to them ; 
 the patrons, whose presentees were rejected, having 
 been found entitled to retain, and having actually re- 
 tained them, during their incumbency. But in both 
 these instances there was a competition between con- 
 tending claimants for the right of patronage ; and in 
 both, the decision of the Assembly proceeded, not on 
 any circumstances in which either the condition of the 
 parishes, or the qualifications of the presentees, were 
 involved, but solely and exclusively on the legal rio-hts 
 of the claimants to the patronage." * 
 
 These remarks apply to the various cases quoted by 
 Dr. Buchanan, and indeed so often referred to as prov- 
 ing that the courts of the Church possessed and exer- 
 cised the right of admitting or refusing presentees just 
 according to their own Avill, and that the only civil 
 penalty legally attached to the rejection of a qualified 
 
 * Constitution of Church, p. 27. 
 
CASES MISREPRESENTED. 205 
 
 presentee, was the forfeiture of the fruits of the bene- 
 fice to which he had been presented. The cases are 
 inapplicable. It was calculated to mislead, and did 
 mislead many, to quote cases of disputed presentations, 
 in which the Church courts, acting to the best of their 
 judgment, were not held to be blameworthy, even 
 though they preferred the presentation which the civil 
 courts ultimately found to be invalid; or cases in which 
 they had, acting bona fide, exercised the jus devolidum^ 
 though it was afterwards found that the patron's right 
 had not fallen ; or cases in which they had sustained 
 valid objections brought against presentees: and from 
 these cases to pronounce it to be a matter ruled and 
 determined that " the patron's right, at the very utmost, 
 could affect only the benefice, but left the disposal of 
 the cure of souls absolutely at the discretion of the 
 Church ; " and that the power of the civil courts was 
 " limited strictly to the disposal of the benefice." * 
 
 It is not necessary that we should examine, with any 
 degree of minuteness, the various cases which, during 
 the period of conflict that preceded the Secession, 
 multiplied and increased day by day the most harassing 
 difficulties in which the Church had become involved. 
 Having taken the first false step and refused to retrace 
 it, every subsequent movement only implicated her in 
 a more elaborate maze. The leaders, beguiled into a 
 false position, from which, however, they resolutely re- 
 fused to descend, began to cast up those entrenchments 
 which subsequently rendered their retreat impossible. 
 
 * Ten Tears' Conflict, vol. i., pp. 160, 167. See also Note A. 
 
20i) PERIOD OF INTERDICTS. 
 
 What were designed as defences to terrify or repulse 
 the enemy, were found to be strong barricades through 
 which they could not themselves retire. 
 
 It is painful to recur to the events of that distressing 
 period of civil interdicts, and actions, and damages, and 
 threats, on the one hand ; and of suspensions, and de- 
 positions, and tyranny, on the other. On both sides 
 there was a stretching of power to the utmost verge, 
 ay, and beyond those limits which were safe for either. 
 Civil interdicts were granted and judgments pro- 
 nounced, which never could have been had not the 
 Church been violating her own constitution. By violat- 
 ing that constitution she exposed herself to attacks 
 which, in any other case, had been persecution. Judg- 
 ments were pronounced against her courts, which, had 
 they been legally constituted, would have implied such 
 invasion of the spiritual jurisdiction as she could by no 
 means have submitted to. 
 
 Our previous examination of the principles involved 
 in the controversy renders it unnecessary that we do 
 more than glance at some of the cases as they succes- 
 sively occurred. For a detailed account, reference 
 may be had to the works of Dr. Buchanan and Dr. 
 Bryce, representatives respectively of the two extreme 
 parties in the Church ; who, viewing the subjects each 
 from a different point, and through a somewhat different 
 medium, have furnished two narratives eminently dis- 
 tinct, and from a comparison of which the intelligent 
 reader will be able to form a tolerably accurate idea of 
 the truth. Both occupied a prominent position during 
 
EXTKEME PAETIES. 207 
 
 the protracted struggle, and both have detailed the 
 facts of the period with as much impartiality as could 
 be hoped for from parties so deeply implicated in the 
 contest. The one claims for the Church powers and 
 privileges which she never enjoyed, and which, if pos- 
 sessed by her, would, we believe, be fatal to her exist- 
 ence. Through the medium of these supposed rights, 
 expressly given by heaven, he views the subject in its 
 length and breadth. The other seems inclined to con- 
 sider the Church as but the creature of the State, pos- 
 sessing only such privileges as by statute are conferred. 
 He boldly asserts " the supremacy of the civil power, 
 even in matters ecclesiastical;" and through this me- 
 dium, not less distorting than the other, he views the 
 subject in all its bearings.* 
 
 * Statements to this effect occur again and again, vide, e. g., vol, ii., pp. 
 133, 140. In the latter of these two passages, Dr. Bryce asserts that the 
 moderate party '" yielded to the civil magistrate the supreme jurisdiction 
 which he had claimed in ecclesiastical matters." The civil magistrate had 
 not, in our day, claimed any such supremacy. The claim, indeed, had often 
 been made by the Stewarts, but had never been pelded by the Church. 
 !N'ot the civil magistrate, but the law, is supreme, as far as the statute ex- 
 tends — supreme at once over the ci\-il and ecclesiastical ruler. The terms 
 of the compact being once arranged, these terms become the law — the law, 
 supreme over the ci\'lL magistrate as much as over the rulers of the Church. 
 That law defines and protects the rights both of the Church and of the 
 State. It would protect the Church against the Crown, or against the 
 illegal claims of patrons, just as it would protect the patrons or the people 
 against the unconstitutional encroachments of the rulers of the Church. 
 The judge can only interpret that law, and act accordingly ; and in doing 
 so he might be called on to protect the humblest presbyter against the 
 Crown itself. We object, therefore, not only to the terms, but to the senti- 
 ment, that " the civil magistrate possesses supreme jurisdiction in ecclesi- 
 astical matters." The Church of Scotland repudiates the doctrine. She 
 has ever done so — she does so now. Such supremacy is expressly excluded, 
 not only in the Church's acknowledged standards, but, as Dr. Bryce him- 
 self elsewhere mamtains, by the civil statutes themselves. Speaking of the 
 
208 DIFFERENT OPINIONS MAY BE FORMED. 
 
 Of the actings of the civil Courts in the several cases 
 which, during the conflict, were brought under their 
 cognisance, different opinions may, as before, be still 
 entertained by those who remain attached to the Estab- 
 lished Church. There were those, belonging to both 
 sides of the Church, who did most emphatically disap- 
 prove of some of the interferences of the Court of Ses- 
 sion, as, in their opinion, trenching on the spiritual 
 
 address by the Convocationists "to the Christian people of Scotland," 
 and revie-wing the charges brought in that address against the civil courts, 
 he says — " These accumulated charges against the civil courts only suggested 
 to every one who had watched the progress of events up to this date, that 
 the position of these courts towards the Established Church would have been 
 more fairly set before ' the people of Scotland,' had they been told that the 
 statutes of the realm, erecting the Church of Scotland, had imposed on these 
 courts the duties here represented as invasions of her rights ; that of these 
 statutes they, the civil tribunals, were the constituted interpreters, and, as 
 bound by their oaths of office, they had, no doubt, honestly discharged 
 their duty. In point of fact, the civil courts had not reviewed, suspended, 
 or reversed any one spiritual censure upon its merits, as was manifestly, and 
 not very honestly, insinuated in this address ; _/br, from the exercise, of this 
 jurisdiction, the statutes had exjjresslt/ excluded them.^^ — Vol. ii., p. 326. 
 
 Such jurisdiction, indeed, is expressly repudiated by the civil judges 
 tliemselves. Can more distinct statements upon this point be required than 
 those given forth b}-- their lordships since the period of the Secession ? In 
 the Frazerburgh case in 1851, Lord President Boyle makes the following 
 statement — " We have just as little right to interfere with the proceedings of 
 Church courts, in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, as we have to interfere 
 with the proceedings of the Court of Justiciary in a criminal question." Vide 
 also speeches, on the same occasion, by Lords Cunningham and Ivory, re- 
 ported in " Dunlop's Cases," July 16, 1851. Or, again, could any statement 
 be more explicit than that of Lord Cunningham — a judge whose decisions 
 had all along been adverse to the claims of the movement party — in a note 
 appended to his judgment in the Cambusnethan case, 14th Januaiy 1846? 
 " This decree is not, and cannot be, competently brought under review of 
 this court on its merits, as we have no jurisdiction in pi'ojyer ecclesiastical 
 causes." Tliese statements are as full and explicit as can be desired. In 
 the former of these cases, a minister deposed by the General Assembly liad 
 presented a note of suspension against the sentence being carried into effect. 
 The Court found ^Hhat the civil court had no right either to control the 
 Church courts in their procedure, or to revieio their sentence on its merits." 
 
AS TO CERTAIN ACTS OF CIVIL COURTS. 209 
 
 province, which, of right and by statute, belongs exclu- 
 sively to the ecclesiastical courts, who nevertheless 
 could see no sufficient reason in these isolated instances 
 — occurring in circumstances altogether peculiar, and 
 called forth by unconstitutional assumptions on the 
 Church's part — for joining with those who seemed 
 determined either to secure to themselves unfettered 
 domination or to effect a schism in the Church. With 
 reference to these cases, similar sentiments are still 
 entertained by not a few who, nevertheless, are most 
 surely convinced that the Church of their fathers has 
 emero;ed from the trouble and disorder of that dark 
 period, unchanged as to her constitution, and unimpaired 
 in her privileges; and that, at the present hour, the 
 ministers and members of the Church of Scotland as 
 by law established, are ministers and members of the 
 freest Church in Christendom. 
 
 Even bigotry herself might blush to maintain that 
 men holding anti-patronage views could, with a clear 
 conscience, accept of presentations and become minis- 
 ters in a Church " bound and astricted to receive and 
 admit qualified presentees," and yet insinuate that men 
 holding to its full extent the distinction between civil 
 and ecclesiastical authority, could not, with a conscience 
 equally clear, remain members of the Church of Scot- 
 land, because, once upon a time, a Presbytery were 
 summoned before, and rebuked by, a civil tribunal, for 
 violating a civil interdict having reference to an eccle- 
 siastical act ; and because, once upon a time, the 
 
 Court of Session issued certain questionable interdicts, 
 
 o 
 
210 QUESTIONABLE ACTS OF CIVIL COURTS . 
 
 which were never obeyed, nor ever attempted to be 
 enforced; and because, when called on to interfere by 
 those who believed their interests to be affected, the 
 same court found that the courts of the Church had no 
 constitutional right to admit whomsoever they might 
 please to the same rights, and privileges, and powers 
 which they themselves enjoyed as rulers in an Estab- 
 lished Church. Of these, and of similar cases, minis- 
 ters of the Church may continue to hold different 
 views.* It does not follow that because they adhered 
 to the Church of their fathers they therefore approved 
 of all the actings of the civil courts, or indeed that they 
 were bound to stand up in defence of any of them, 
 although we believe that there are few indeed among 
 them who, how much soever they may at one time 
 have been misled by the popular expositions of the 
 day, will not confess, now that the season of calm re- 
 flection has returned, that the exciting representa- 
 tions given forth to a roused, and astonished, and hor- 
 rified people, of the judgments, and interdicts, and 
 aggressions in every shape, of the Court of Session, 
 were, to a very great extent, exaggerated and dis- 
 torted, and highly coloured, and that, however unde- 
 
 * " Of the acts of the civil courts narrated in the ' Protest,' the Church 
 of Scotland can only be bound to vindicate two ; viz., those implied in the 
 first and second Auchterarder decisions b}' the House of Peers, since in 
 these alone lias the mind of the State been finally given. Respecting; 
 others, we do not know what its mind may be. They were not brought 
 by appeal before the supreme courts, and until the principle adopted 
 by the State shall have been given, it is utterly unreasonable to charge 
 the acts of an inferior court against us, or even to call on us to vindicate 
 our submission to them as in accordance Avith the Word of God." — ATistcer 
 to the Protest in Smith's Truth as Revealed, pp. 74, 75. 
 
LETHENDY CASE. 211 
 
 signedly, they did convey an erroneous impression of 
 the facts. 
 
 The Lethendy case was among the first that occurred 
 to add to the difficulties and troubles of the Church, 
 while that of Auchterarder was still under appeal. We 
 shall not venture to inflict upon the reader the details 
 either of this or of those which subsequently ensued. 
 They were long before the public, and, if now happily 
 forgotten, so much the better for the cause of peace and 
 righteousness. The case is skilfully narrated by the ac- 
 complished author of the *' Ten Years' Conflict." He 
 omits, however, to mention certain facts and circum- 
 stances which materially alter the complexion of the 
 whole. The case was not one of disputed or competing 
 presentations, in the ordinary sense, in which a Presby- 
 tery might either have doubts as to the party having 
 right to present, or might be called on to exercise their 
 own judgment in selecting the presentee whose claims 
 were believed to be preferable. It was a case of double 
 presentation by the same undoubted patron.* The first 
 presentation had been sustained, and the presentee had 
 been rejected on the footing of the Veto, now declared to 
 be illegal. The Church had appealed the Auchterarder 
 case to the House of Peers ; but surely it was too much, 
 in the interim, to act in the Lethendy case as if her 
 appeal had been successful, and the judgment of the 
 Court of Session had been reversed. It was thus, how- 
 ever, that she did act — misled no doubt, by the Crown 
 having issued a new presentation in favour of another. 
 
 * See Note B. 
 
212 DOUBLE PRESENTATION. 
 
 The Presbytery were proceeding to induct the new pre- 
 sentee, when, at the instance of the former, an interdict 
 was served upon them. According to the doctrine held 
 by Mr. Dunlop in 1833, no doubt could be entertained 
 as to the competency of such an interdict. It was not 
 an interdict forbidding the purely spiritual act of ordi- 
 nation, but forbidding the ordination and induction of 
 of Mr. Kessen to a particular parish^ to which another had 
 been presented, and who had never been legally found 
 disqualified — nay, whose qualifications the Presbytery 
 had refused to try. The Presbytery were fully entitled 
 to grant the spiritual privilege of ordination to Mr. 
 Kessen, or to any other man whom they judged quali- 
 fied to receive it ; but they w^ere not entitled to ordain 
 him minister of the parish of Lethendy, by that act giv- 
 ing him a right to civil privileges which might belong to 
 another man. If the Church herself had so conjoined 
 the two acts of ordination to the ministry and induction 
 to a benefice that the one necessarily included the other, 
 then, by that conjunction, she had given the civil power 
 an indirect hold upon the spiritual act, so as to inter- 
 dict its performance when, as in this case, it implied a 
 clear invasion of civil rights. 
 
 Precisely the same thing might occur in the case of a 
 Voluntary Church. Suppose the Free Kirk to establish 
 for themselves a definite rule for the election of minis- 
 ters — let it be by a majority of male heads of families, 
 or of all the members indiscriminately. Let the law 
 )/e definitely established, so that every individual who 
 joins that Church does so on the distinct understand- 
 
SAME MAY HAPPEN IN NON-ESTABLISHED CHURCH. 213 
 
 ing that he thereby acquires a right to vote in the elec- 
 tion of a minister. That right, we believe, becomes a 
 civil right. ^Ye do not believe that any Kirk-session 
 or Presbytery, or other Church court, has the power to 
 deprive that individual of his right, so long as they al- 
 low him to remain a member of that Church, and he 
 has subjected himself to no legitimate disqualification. 
 Now, suppose the case of a minister elected by a clear 
 and undisputed majority of qualified voters. The mi- 
 nister so elected has acquired thereby certain civil 
 rights. But suppose the majority of the Presbytery to 
 have adopted certain novel opinions — say on the subject 
 of education, or the necessity of a definite creed, or 
 with regard to some exciting political question — on 
 which they differ both from the electing majority and 
 from the minister of their choice : suppose farther, that 
 the call of the majority and its acceptance by the mi- 
 nister have been laid upon the table of the Presbytery, 
 but that, afterwards, another call by a small minority 
 of parties agreeing in sentiment with the Presbytery, in 
 favour of a man of kindred spirit, has also been pro- 
 duced, and that the Presbytery, in despite of the ac- 
 knowledged law of their Church, and in opposition to 
 the electing majority, have resolved to trample on their 
 rights, and to proceed to the ordination and induction 
 of the man proposed by the minority. Has the majo- 
 rity in such a case no remedy ? Is there no defence 
 for them against this invasion of their rights ? They 
 may go to the Synod, and thence to the Assembly, but 
 if these courts decide against them, must they tamely 
 
214SA]ME MAY HAPPEN IN NON ESTABLISHED CHURCH. 
 
 submit, and allow themselves to be denuded of important 
 privileges secured to them by their own express laws ? 
 
 It does not affect the question to say that such a 
 case cannot occur because their law prevents all intru- 
 sion. The question is, what remedy would be resorted 
 to — or is there any remedy — in case of a fundamental 
 law being violated? No doubt, they might secede; 
 but neither does that affect the case. They might do 
 the same if they were members of the Established 
 Church. But supposing they do not wish to secede — 
 supposing their consciences will not permit them to 
 be guilty of the schism — what is the result ? One of 
 two things must follow. Either they must yield to the 
 rulers of their Church in a case of clear invasion of 
 rights secured by a definite law — that is to say, they 
 must submit to the decision or arbitrary will of their 
 ecclesiastical rulers, even when they set their own laws 
 and the privileges of their people at defiance — a notion 
 which would surely be somewhat peculiar in those who 
 call themselves members of a Free Church; or they 
 must apply to the civil power for protection against an 
 invasion of their acknowledged rights, and to compel 
 their spiritual rulers to have respect to their own laws, 
 when the violation of them invades the rights of their 
 people — a notion also peculiar in those whose ministers 
 claim that spiritual independence in which the Free 
 Church glories.* 
 
 • Vide Note, p. 76. Similar remarks might be made ^nth respect to 
 cases of discipline. Nay, here the Churcli as by law established is really 
 tlie Free Church. " In regard to this important matter," says Dr. Lock- 
 hart of luchiunan, iu his answer to tho '' Protest of the Free Church," " it 
 
RIGHT OF APPEAL. 215 
 
 The latter would probably be the alternative chosen, 
 and, in that case, a bill of interdict would be brought 
 against the Presbytery to prevent them from ordaining 
 and inductinof the man not elected to the cure — an in- 
 terdict which, even in such a case, could not be violated 
 with impunity. 
 
 There is a virtual understanding and agreement, on 
 the part of all who connect themselves with the Church, 
 that those rights shall be preserved to them which the 
 constitution of the Church confers. The members have 
 a rio:ht to vote in the election of their ministers — a 
 right which, in virtue of that agreement which the 
 constitution implies, becomes, we believe, a civil right, 
 which may be defended by civil means. It may be 
 attached, as in some cases, to the holding of property, 
 as of pews in the Church.* But whether it be so or 
 
 turns out, that the protesters have exchanged a temporary grievance of 
 their own creating for a permanent yoke of bondage. Unlike those of the 
 Establishment, their courts are at the mercy of any individual who thinks 
 himself aggrieved by their proceedings. An action for slander may be at 
 once brought against them before the Court of Session, and the records of the 
 Church court may be ordered up that the merits of the case may be ascertained. 
 Kor -will their boast of spiritual independence, or assumption of the title of the 
 Church of Scotland, ward otf pecuniary damages in connexion with a purely 
 spiritual function, provided the gnilt of the accused person be not established 
 on evidence satisfactory to the civil court. From all risk of such Erastian 
 interference the Established Church is completely protected by the indepen- 
 dent spiritual jurisdiction, as recognised and ratified by Parliamentary 
 statutes." — Answer^ p. 28. 
 
 * To what extent this qualification is recognised among the various dis- 
 senting bodies in our own country we are not aware. In the United 
 States its recognition is almost universal. Election is vested, not in the 
 communicants, but in the pew-holders and others contributing pecuniary 
 support. " In the Presbyterian and most other Churches, each pew-holder, 
 or each head of a family who subscribes towards the pastor's salary for 
 himself and household, and others Avho subscribe only for themselves, are 
 allowed a voice in the call." — Baird's Religion in the United States, p. 309. 
 
216 CIVIL RIGHTS. 
 
 not, it is a right of which no man can be deprived, 
 apart from his own consent, without cause shewn. 
 
 In like manner, the minister lawfully elected has, 
 by his election, acquired a civil right which may, in 
 the same way, be defended. No civil court, indeed, 
 may prescribe laws to any Church ; but if that Church 
 has, by her own authority, framed laws which confer 
 upon her members privileges involving civil rights, 
 the civil courts may, if applied to, interfere to de- 
 fend a man in the possession of these rights. No 
 man, by becoming a member of any Church, can be 
 held to deprive himself of the rights of a British sub- 
 ject. And it is an act of mere despotism — of spiritual 
 tyranny — to threaten or to visit a man with spiritual 
 censures, for calling in the aid of the civil power to de- 
 fend his civil rights from wanton aggression, even 
 although civil or ecclesiastical matters should be impli- 
 cated in these rights — an act worthy only of the period 
 when the Church declared it to be ground of summary 
 deposition, if a minister should, even in a civil cause 
 with another minister, carry his suit to the civil court. 
 
 As to the points involved in the Lethendy case, 
 there was a difference of opinion even among those who 
 did not concur in sentiment with the ruling majority. 
 There were those who held, that even in that case, on 
 account of the purely ecclesiastical matter involved, had 
 a plea to that effect been put in by the Presbytery, the 
 interdict would not have been granted. The Presby- 
 tery, however, did not condescend to state the grounds 
 on which they declined the authority of the Court of 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER IX. 217 
 
 Session ; and when a motion recommending this step 
 was made in the Commission, it was negatived by an 
 overwhelming majority. 
 
 NOTES TO CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Note A. 
 
 The cases quoted or referred to by Dr. Buchanan do by no 
 means support his conclusions. His authorities must be at fault, 
 for the cases are incorrectly given. Take an instance or two. 
 Among others, he refers to the oft-quoted case of Currie in 1740. 
 Now the truth is, that this, instead of being a case in point, was 
 one in which the right of the magistrates of Edinburgh to present 
 was disputed ; and when it was ultimately admitted by the As- 
 sembly, "that there was sufficient evidence of the town's having 
 been in use to present," a compromise Avas suggested by the As- 
 sembly, agi'eed to by the magistrates, and acquiesced in by the 
 presentee. — Vide Annals of the Assembly 114^0. Yet is this case 
 referred to as proving the Church's asserted right to refuse to 
 settle presentees. 
 
 The case of Biggar in 1752, is equally inapplicable. The As- 
 sembly 1751 had found " that in the present circumstances it was 
 not expedient to appoint the settlement of the presentee, and re- 
 mitted to the Presbytery of Biggar to deal with all concerned in 
 order to bring about a comfortable settlement of the said parish." 
 At the May Commission of the following year, the case again ap- 
 pears, and the Commission " appoint a committee of their owti 
 number, in conjunction with the Presbytery of Biggar, with all 
 concerned, in order to bring about a comfortable settlement of the 
 parish of Biggar, and particularly with the people of that parish, 
 in order to Mr. William Haig's peaceable settlement there ; and to 
 report to the Commission in November." How then did the Com- 
 mission in November proceed? The committee reported that 
 " they had caUed upon the elders, who were all present, and de- 
 clared the grou7ids of their opposition. 1. That the presentee could 
 not be heard by a great part of the congregation : and, 2d, That 
 
218 NOTES TO CIIAPTEK IX. 
 
 lie was so unwieldy and infirm as to be unable to perform the 
 duties of his office. That the people and heritors present all ad- 
 hered to the objections." Parties being heard, the Commission 
 named a committee of their own number "to join with the Pres- 
 bytery, and to meet at Biggar on the second Thursday of March, to 
 take trial of the objections against Mi: Haig, particularly with re- 
 spect to his voice, and appoint Mr. Haig to preach to the said 
 meeting that day in the church of Biggar, and if they find the 
 above objections not sufficiently supported, that they deal further 
 with the people of the parish to bring them into his settlement, 
 and report their proceedings to the Commission in March next." — 
 Annals of Assembly. This case is quoted by Dr. Buchanan as one 
 "•in accordance with the fundamental principle that no minister 
 be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the congrega- 
 tion," and as illustrating " the exercise of the Church's intrinsic 
 and often ratified jurisdiction in the examination and admission 
 of ministers," vol. i., p. 163. We accept the illustration, though 
 not quite in the sense in which the Doctor uses it. We request 
 the reader to note the italics. 
 
 Once more, let us glance at the famous case of Dunse in 1749. 
 Dr. Buchanan refers to this as a case about which no doubt can 
 be entertained. " The Presbytery of Dunse," he says, " about the 
 middle of last century, thought fit to disregard the patron's pre- 
 sentee altogether, and were proceeding to settle another person 
 upon the call of the congregation. The patron sought redress in 
 the civil court, asking not simply that the temporalities of the case 
 should be withheld from the person whom the congregation had 
 called, but that the court should interdict the Presbytery from 
 proceeding with the settlement of that person altogether. Both 
 the judgment pronounced in the case, and the reasons on which it 
 was founded, are preserved in the words of one of the judges, 
 Lord Monboddo, with whom the whole court concurred : — ' With 
 this conclusion,' says his Lordship, ' the Court would not meddle, 
 because that was interfering with the power of ordination, or the 
 internal policy of the Church, with which the lords thought they 
 had nothing to do.'" — Ten Years' Conflict^ vol. i., pp. 166, 167. 
 Now it gi'ieves us to be obliged to state that we do not think this 
 a fair representation of the case. For, 1st, as is well known, 
 the accuracy of Lord Monboddo's report has been questioned. 
 (Om* readers, too, will recollect the statement of Mr. Dunlop quoted 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER IX. 219 
 
 ill note, p. 200—" There seems to be nothing to prevent the su- 
 preme civil court from interdicting the proceedings of Presbyteries 
 as to the admission of ministers.") 2. The case was one of dis- 
 puted presentation. This ought, in fairness, to have been stated. 
 It was denied that Belton— the person presenting— was really the 
 patron having right, and it was only after lengthened litigation 
 that his right was established. The Presbytery, therefore, instead 
 of " disregarding the patron's presentee altogether," were only 
 disregarding the nominesofone whose right to present was disputed 
 and denied. 3. After the decision of the Lord Ordinary, a reclaim- 
 ing petition was given in, praying to review the Lord Ordinary's 
 interlocutor, and to find, among other things, "that no action is 
 competent before your Lordships for reversing the judgments of a 
 Church-judicature in the settlement of a minister. ... And that 
 it is not competent to your Lordships to gi'ant an injunction to 
 Chm-ch- judicatories not to settle a minister in a vacant parish." 
 The petition was refused. The Lords "adhered to the Lord 
 Ordinary's interlocutor, and refused the desire of the petition 
 in so far as it reclaimed against the said interlocutor; and 
 found that the general words, discerns and declares (the terms 
 of the interlocutor) can go no further than the particulars 
 discerned." So far from discerning as Dr. Buchanan supposes, 
 they refused to entertain that question as not being before 
 them. 4. When the case was appealed to the House of Peers, 
 the judgment reserved the question of jurisdiction altogether. 
 And, 5. Belton s presentee, Mr. Adam Dickson, whom, according 
 to Dr. Buchanan, "the Presbytery thought fit to disregard alto- 
 gether," was the very man whom the Presbytery ordained. In the 
 Assembly 1749, "after parties were heard, and members had 
 reasoned at great length, the question was put, whether to appomt 
 a moderation to the presentee alone, or a moderation at large? 
 and it carried the former. Thereupon the Assembly appointed 
 the Presbytery of Dunse to moderate in a call for Mr. Adam Dick- 
 son alone, betwixt and the 1st of August next." The case was 
 finally settled in the Assembly 1750 (a delay having occurred in 
 consequence of the appeal to the House of Peers). On 18th May, 
 the Assembly " without a vote, sustained Mr. Dickson's call, and 
 appointed the Presbyteiy of Dunse to proceed with all convenient 
 speed to his trials and settlement, so as his ordination and admis- 
 sion to that parish be completed on or before the 28th September." 
 
220 NOTES TO CHAPTER IX. 
 
 — Annals of Assembly, vol. i., pp. 141, 143. Instead of " thinking 
 fit to disregard Mr. Adam Dickson altogether," the Presbytery of 
 Dunse ordained him to that parish. Such is the fact; and "a 
 fact," as Dr. Buchanan elsewhere remarks, " is worth a thousand 
 apologies and explanations," p. 282. The truth is (whether cre- 
 ditable to the Church or not, is another question), that while in 
 cases of difficulty connected with presentations, a compromise was 
 often effected and the differences adjusted by amicable arrange- 
 ment among the parties interested, there are few, if any, cases 
 on record during the period referred to, in which, when the patron 
 or presentee urged the matter to a decision, the Assembly did not 
 determine it in his favour. 
 
 We need not examine more of the cases referred to. Let these 
 specimens suffice. But it is grievous to think that by representa- 
 tions such as those alluded to in the text, made, we doubt not, in 
 many instances unwittingly, and, once made, retailed on every 
 befitting occasion, many were beguiled. It is not to be wondered 
 at that not a few who ultimately detected the mistakes, and threw 
 ofi" the yoke, were nevertheless kept for a long period in bondage. 
 There were comparatively few who had leisure or opportunity 
 either carefully to examine principles, or to verify references and 
 quotations ; and hence the multitudes who became an easy prey. 
 
 Before concluding this note, it may be proper, to prevent mis- 
 apprehension, to observe, that though it is not true that the 
 " patron's right, at the very utmost, could aff'ect only the benefice, 
 but left the disposal of the cure absolutely at the discretion of 
 the Church," — yet the Church did possess unlimited powers as to 
 the trial of the qualifications and fitness of all presentees. The tes- 
 timony of Dr. Bryce to this efi'ect is very distinct, and not likely to 
 be questioned. " The same law," he says, " which compelled the 
 Presbyteries to act ministerially in going on to trials, gave to 
 them, after trials taken, the most unrestrained judicial powers in 
 disposing of the presentee ; and the very ground, that the presentee 
 had been dissented from by a certain proportion of the congrega- 
 tion, of a certain character and description, although unable legally 
 to sustain the Presbytery in refusing to take him on trials, might, 
 for anything decided up to the period of the Secession in 1843, 
 have supported their rejection in the eye of the civil law, however 
 well qualified they might have found him in life, literature, and 
 doctrine."— Ten Years of the Church, vol. i., p. 22. Again, " After 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER IX. 221 
 
 the presentee has been admitted to trials, the Presbytery may, 
 under the Act 1567, refuse to induct, for any reason they may see 
 fit," p. 30. 
 
 Note B. 
 
 The former presentation was in the form common in such cases, 
 by what is generally called a sign -manual. It was regarded as 
 valid by the Presbytery. Dr. Buchanan seems to insinuate that 
 it might have been altogether disregarded by the Presbytery, 
 who, without reason assigned, might have refused to appoint any 
 assistant and successor to the aged minister of Lethendy. Pro- 
 bably they might have done so, and that without the risk of 
 challenge. But they did not do so. They sustained the presenta- 
 tion and acted on it. Through it they brought the presentee 
 before the congi-egation. It is not, therefore, quite fair to attempt 
 to aggravate the hardship of the case, by saying that, " apart 
 altogether from the barrier of the Congregational Veto, the simple 
 fact that the Presbytery had declined to proceed with the settle- 
 ment would have been held, doA\Ti till 1838, to be conclusive 
 against his title to either benefice or cure, and that whether the 
 Presbytery had assigned a reason for their refusal to proceed or 
 no." — (Vol. ii., p. 81.) Had the Presbytery acted as is here hinted 
 at, the Lethendy case would not have occurred. The Presbytery, 
 however, instead of so acting, sustained the presentation ; and 
 yet, notwithstanding, rejected the presentee simply on the illegal 
 ground of the now declared to be illegal Veto. It was just be- 
 cause they did not act " apart altogether from the Congregational 
 Veto " that they put themselves in the most distressing position 
 which they afterwards occupied. To say, as Dr. Buchanan does, 
 that, "as the poor creature's (the presentee's) subsequent career 
 abundantly proved he was most heartily and justly vetoed by the 
 congregation, ... he being, subsequently to the Disruption, 
 deprived of his licence for drunkenness," is just equivalent to 
 saying that the Lethendy people had substantial reasons, and 
 could have stated them; that is, that they could have done 
 legally what they chose to attempt to do illegally. If the offence 
 afterwards brought home to the presentee was unknown to the 
 parishioners, or had not been committed at the time, it is difficult 
 to perceive how it is connected with the congregation most 
 " heartily and justly " vetoing hmi. They may have done so most 
 
222 NOTES TO CHAPTER IX. 
 
 heartily, no doubt, but the proof of their doing so justly, falls to 
 the ground. If, however, as Dr. Buchanan's words would lead us 
 to infer — though it is not easy to discover how the man's subse- 
 quent career should have led them to veto him most heartily — 
 they were at the time cognisant of the fact that he was addicted 
 to intemperance, then was the Veto virtually made a shelter to 
 the man who should have been proceeded against by libel and 
 deprived of his licence. We fear the defence of the justice of the 
 Veto in this particular case implies the laxity of the Presbytery. 
 At all events, if Dr. Buchanan's statement be worth anything, it 
 cuts up by the roots the plea of conscience, urged in behalf of the 
 Presbytery, as far as non-intrusion is concerned, for, apart alto- 
 gether from the Veto, there were ample grounds for preventing 
 the intrusion of the presentee upon the parish of Lethendy. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 New Attempts at Extrication— Correspondence between Earl of Aberdeen 
 and Dr. Chalmers— Popular Veto abandoned— Misunderstanding— Con- 
 cessions— Bill of 184:0 unreasonably opposed- Middle party increasing in 
 strength. 
 
 Omitting, as unnecessary, all further consideration of 
 the various harassing cases in which, in the progress of 
 the conflict, the Church became involved, we proceed 
 to consider some of the efforts made towards her extri- 
 cation from a position which was becoming every day 
 more perilous. 
 
 For a considerable time, as we have already seen, the 
 hope was entertained that Government would introduce 
 such a measure as, if carried, would secure the objects 
 contemplated by the ruling majorities of the Assembly. 
 That hope so fondly cherished was bitterly disappointed. 
 Xo efforts, indeed, were spared to induce the Legisla- 
 ture to interfere. Exciting harangues addressed to 
 popular audiences, followed by numerous and laro-elv 
 signed petitions, deputations, interviews— in short, 
 every means which skilful and earnest men could resort 
 to — were employed. But in vain: Government de- 
 clined to legislate in the matter. 
 
 Such was the melancholy posture of affairs — the 
 gloom thickening on every side, and new dangers 
 threatening day by day— when the hopes of men, now 
 
224 LORD ABERDEEN. 
 
 weary of a contest so pregnant of bitterness, and so full 
 of peril to the best interests both of the Church and of 
 the country, were again awakened by the prospect of a 
 new effort at extrication. 
 
 Early in January 1840, an interview w^as granted by 
 Lord Aberdeen to the members of the Non-intrusion 
 Committee, and, from that period, we find his Lordship 
 most devotedly labouring to secure what he believed to 
 be the best interests of the Church. The task was in 
 some respects a most ungracious one. It exposed his 
 Lordship at a subsequent period to the attacks of many 
 who, during the rage of the controversy, had accus- 
 tomed themselves to the use of language which, in any 
 case, had been better spared, and to the imputation of 
 motives unwarranted by any part of his Lordship's 
 conduct. 
 
 A careful and unprejudiced perusal of the Earl's cor- 
 respondence with Dr. Chalmers and the secretaries of 
 the Non-intrusion Committee, and of the minutes of the 
 Assembly's committees in relation to the settlement of 
 the Church question, will absolve both parties from the 
 malignant charge of wilful deception. But it will do 
 more than this. It will scarcely fail to leave upon the 
 reader's mind an impression that, — had the settlement 
 of the question been left to tlie noble Earl, on the one 
 hand, and the reverend Doctor on the other, without 
 those marring influences which the political purposes 
 of some, and the extreme views of other "disturbed 
 spirits whose element is agitation," from time to time, 
 introduced, — a safe and honourable result would have 
 
COKRESPONDENCE WITE[ DR. CHALMERS. 225 
 
 been effected — securing, as is now done, to the people 
 their unimpaired privileges, and to the courts of the 
 Church their unchallangeable rights, and thus prevent- 
 ing that deplorable catastrophe which at length severed 
 so many holy ties, and converted into foes so many of 
 the Church's most zealous and devoted friends. 
 
 From the first, the Earl declared his adherence to the 
 principle of non-intrusion as recognised by the Church 
 of Scotland, but, at the same time, most explicitly 
 stated his determination to give no countenance to that 
 form which the principle had been made to assume in the 
 Veto law. Dissent without reasons, or mere dislike on 
 the part of the male heads of families in a parish, he re- 
 fused to sanction as an imperative ground for rejecting 
 a qualified presentee. On this point his statements were 
 too explicit to admit of doubt. It must therefore be 
 assumed that in prosecuting the correspondence with 
 the noble Earl, this point was given up. The popular 
 Veto was abandoned. A Presbytery was not to be 
 compelled, as under the Veto, to reject a presentee 
 simply on the ground of expressed dissents. 
 
 This point conceded, the next insisted on was that 
 there should be a presbyterial instead of a popular Veto. 
 It was agreed, that in every case of dissent, the dissen- 
 tients should give in reasons to be judged of by the 
 Presbytery. Nothing can be more explicit than the 
 statements of Dr. Chalmers to this effect. In his letter, 
 January 27, 1840, he says, "We are willing that rea- 
 sons should always accompany dissent, and that these 
 reasons should be dealt with and canvassed to the utter- 
 
2'2Q MISUNDERSTANDING. 
 
 most ; but we are not willing that we should be bound 
 to admit the presentee, if the people do not make good 
 their reasons ; on the contrary, we hold ourselves free, 
 though not obliged, to exclude a presentee because of 
 the strength of the popular dislike, though not substan- 
 tiated by express reasons — a case which may occur, 
 though not once in a hundred, I believe not once in a 
 thousand, times." * 
 
 At this point, a misunderstanding occurred between 
 the Earl and his correspondents. The one was willing 
 to concede, and the other to accept a presbyterial Veto 
 in place of the popular. They differed as to what the 
 presbyterial Veto should imply. The one intended that 
 it should include the most ample power of judging not 
 only of the reasons of dissent, but of the whole case, 
 and of determining accordingly ; " full and unfettered 
 power to decide judicially on the fitness or unfitness of 
 the presentee for the particular parish, as their consci- 
 ence and a sense of duty might direct, without being 
 bound either by the numerical amount of the objectors, 
 or the precise nature of the reasons of dissent assigned." 
 The other demanded such a Veto as would authorise 
 them in any case to reject, simply on the ground that a 
 majority dissented, however futile their reasons of dis- 
 sent might be, and although, In their own judgment, the 
 presentee was, in every other respect, the best and 
 fittest for the parish. Disguise it how men may, that 
 
 • Correspondence, p. 16, The venerable doctor is here more like himself 
 than when he labours to prove the incapacity of the people to state their 
 reasons of dissent. 
 
CONCESSION. 227 
 
 was the point of divergence. The concession was, un- 
 fettered power of judging and unfettered power of act- 
 ing according to the judgment formed. The demand 
 was, unfettered power of acting either with or without 
 or contrary to a judgment formed regarding the special 
 case — unfettered power, for instance, of rejecting a pre- 
 sentee, if the Presbytery should so choose, simply on the 
 ground that a majority of the male heads of families 
 objected, however erroneous and unfounded the reasons 
 of their objecting might be proved to be. Kay, even 
 this demand was ready to be conceded. " It is agreed," 
 says Lord Aberdeen, " that, in all cases, the people ob- 
 jecting to a presentee, shall assign the reasons of their 
 dissent, be they what they may. Now, let us suppose 
 that a number of persons should object to a presentee, 
 because he had red hair. This would, no doubt, be a 
 very bad reason ; but if they persevered in their hatred 
 of red hair, and the Presbytery found it consistent with 
 their sense of duty and the dictates of their own con- 
 sciences, they might give effect to the objection by re- 
 jecting the presentee." * 
 
 To all practical effects, the concession was abund- 
 antly sufficient to protect the principle of non-intrusion 
 — more so by far than the Veto itself could have been. 
 More prominence might have been given, as in the 
 present law is the case, to the element of the number 
 and character of the persons objecting; but, simply as 
 the proposal appears in the published correspondence, 
 the greatest possible security is given for the mainten- 
 
 • Correspondence, p. 23. 
 
228 COMMITTEE RISE IN THEIR DEMANDS. 
 
 ance of non-intrusion ; and the challenge may be fear- 
 lessly made, to produce, in the previous history of the 
 Church of Scotland, any enactment, whether of the 
 State or of the Church herself, in which the rights of 
 the Christian people are more largely stated, or more 
 carefully protected. 
 
 It may well, in these circumstances, be asked, how 
 negotiations so promising were disturbed; and how, 
 when the parties were brought practically within a 
 hairbreadth of agreement, the happy prospect of a 
 settlement was again destroyed. 
 
 The Committee, as we have seen, had consented to 
 abandon an imperative popular Veto, and had agreed 
 instead, to acquiesce in a measure which should secure 
 to them the power of giving effect to objections with- 
 out reasons, or without proper reasons, if they should 
 see cause; in short, of giving effect to unreasonable 
 opposition, if they chose, when that opposition was 
 pertinaciously maintained. Did they begin to suspect 
 that they had, even by this acquiescence, gone too far? 
 — to perceive that even this was, to some extent, an 
 abandonment of their favourite principle of non-intru- 
 sion, as by themselves defined? Perhaps they did; 
 and hence, it may be, that " tendency to rise in their 
 demand," which Dr. Chalmers perceived, and which 
 made him feel uneasy. " Your Lordship," says Dr. 
 Chalmers, " had been made to understand from myself 
 that, though I would rather the legislature had recog- 
 nised our power to deal any way with the question ; 
 . . . yet that I, for one, should acquiesce if your 
 
POLITICAL LEANINGS. 229 
 
 Lordship could be brought up no further than thus to 
 acknowledge our judicial power, and make us, in the 
 exercise thereof, free from the control and interference 
 of the civil court. This, I gave you reason to under- 
 stand, was mj mind, and I thought the Committee had 
 given you reason to understand it was their mind also. 
 / therefore felt uneasy when I perceived a tendency to rise 
 in their demand, and more especially as it seemed their 
 disposition to lose sight of the less measure, as an 
 alternative which they were prepared to fall back upon, 
 if they could not get a larger." * 
 
 Was it that political leanings on the part of some of 
 the members would have led them to prefer the measure 
 from another quarter, or the hope still lingering, not- 
 withstanding former cruel disappointments, of a measure 
 yet more liberal from the party opposed to that to 
 which the Earl was attached f Perhaps, even uncon- 
 sciously to themselves, the political leaven was silently 
 at work. Hear Dr. Chalmers in his letter of February 
 29th : "I am quite aware of the worthless policy of the 
 Whigs, which is to outdo in popularity the measure of 
 the Conservatives, whatever that may be." Again, 
 March 10th : "It is quite manifest the only aim of the 
 Whigs in this question is to out-jockey their political 
 opponents, and to advance themselves." And again, 
 March 12th, with reference to Mr. Dunlop's connexion 
 with the Perthshire election, and to Lord Aberdeen's 
 remarks that he could no longer represent the questions 
 now agitating the Church, to the Conservative party, 
 
 * Correspondence, March 10th, p. 36. 
 
230 REAL GROUND OF DIFFERENCE. 
 
 with any hope of success, as questions having no 
 political character, unless the Committee should dis- 
 avow the conduct of Mr. Dunlop, and repudiate all 
 connexion with any political object, we find him thus 
 expressing himself: "1 grieve to think that the Com- 
 mittee, while it consented to a very tame disclaimer of 
 all participation in Mr. Dunlop's movement, should not 
 have acquiesced in my indignant disavowal of our having 
 any political views." 
 
 Or, in fine, may there, after all, have been any 
 grounds for the suspicion which his Lordship expresses 
 in the following sentence? — "There are some *dis- 
 turbed spirits,' whose element is agitation, and who, I 
 much fear, do not greatly desire this settlement." 
 
 Whether any or all of these causes operated towards 
 the effect, certain it is that, so far as the committees 
 were concerned, no beneficial result was produced. 
 The negotiations were broken up with something like 
 mutual distrust. 
 
 There was, indeed, a point on w^hich the Earl and his 
 correspondents difi^ered. It assumed no great apparent 
 magnitude. At times it was almost latent ; but, not- 
 withstanding, it was the root of bitterness, which might 
 be concealed, but could not be eradicated, and which 
 was ready at all times to spring up and to present a 
 barrier against perfect reconciliation. That point was 
 the dogma of spiritual independence, as held by the 
 Committee, with reference to the non-intrusion prin- 
 ciple. The non-intrusion question was virtually set- 
 tled. A measure was offered, as far as his Lordship 
 
THE BARRIER. 231 
 
 could make any offer on the subject, which was amply- 
 sufficient to secure parishes against the intrusion of un- 
 acceptable presentees. It was put within the power of 
 the Church courts to prevent intrusion. A particular 
 mode, however, was prescribed in which this was to be 
 done ; and what if the Church courts should deviate 
 from or refuse adherence to that mode ? The answer 
 could not be concealed. It must have presented itself 
 to every mind. If, by that deviation or refusal, the 
 civil interests of any are affected, he may have recourse 
 to the civil courts for redress. Now, this was the point 
 where resistance was offered. And, to avoid the possi- 
 bility, as was supposed, of such a result, the demand 
 was made that power so uncontrolled should be vested 
 in the Church courts, that, on the ground of mere 
 dislike on the part of the people, though founded on 
 prejudice, or, in fact, without assigning any reason 
 whatever, a Presbytery could reject a presentee. This 
 was the liberum arhitrium demanded for the Church — 
 the power of acting as she should please, both by her 
 parishes and presentees. It was a demand for a law to 
 put her above all law. 
 
 With this demand lurking in the heart, successful 
 negotiation was impracticable. It might proceed a cer- 
 tain length with seeming success, but sooner or later 
 the bubble must burst. The very demand for a non- 
 intrusion measure by the civil power, must have been 
 felt to be to some extent a dereliction of high principle. 
 To be thoroughly consistent, the sole demand made 
 upon the State should have been, a simple recognition 
 
232 INCOMPATIBLE PRINCIPLES. 
 
 of the Church's unlimited power — a law, not providing 
 for non-intrusion, but simply declaring that there should 
 be no law upon the subject other than what, in each oc- 
 curring case, might happen to be the will of the courts 
 of the Church ; for it was absurd and impossible to en- 
 tertain the view that the State should pass a law em- 
 bodying a rule, and yet legislate to the effect that that 
 rule should be observed or not, at pleasure. 
 
 In fact, in the sense adopted by the movement party 
 in the Church, non-intrusion and spiritual independence 
 were incompatible with one another. Non-intrusion 
 must limit the independence, and independence must 
 limit the non-intrusion. Spiritual independence ceases, 
 if the Church be compelled to reject the man whom she 
 believes the best qualified for a particular charge. Non- 
 intrusion ceases, if the Church demand the power of or- 
 daininjr and inductino^ the man whom she, in the exer- 
 cise of her own judgment, deems the fittest man. The 
 proposal of Aberdeen was one calculated to combine the 
 highest practicable exercise of both — to prescribe and 
 defend the rights of the people — to define, and, within 
 the ample limits defined, including everything short of 
 the exercise of tyranny and arbitrary power, to uphold 
 and defend the rights of the Church. 
 
 Animated by a sincere desire to preserve the Church 
 from threatening ruin. Lord Aberdeen determined, on 
 his own responsibility and without further communica- 
 tion with the Assembly's Committee, to introduce his 
 celebrated bill, " for removing doubts in the settlement 
 of vacant parishes in Scotland." This he did on the 
 
BILL OF 1840. 233 
 
 5th April 1840. Copies of the bill were ere long in 
 the hands of many members of the Church, and, had 
 the individual ministers been permitted to exercise their 
 own judgments in the reading and interpretation of the 
 bill, there were comparatively few, we do conscientiously 
 believe, who would not have hailed it as a measure to 
 which, without any compromise of principle, they could 
 submit. To the writer of these pages, who felt himself 
 bound in this, as in other matters, to claim and to exercise 
 the right of private judgment, it seemed, in the circum- 
 stances, a measure fraught with good ; and, having at the 
 time the opportunity of frequent intercourse with many 
 who had been zealoite in defence of popular rights, he 
 states it as a fact that many of those who afterwards 
 strenuously opposed, were, at the first, and while un- 
 biassed by sinister interpretations, satisfied with its pro- 
 visions, and hailed it as the measure which was to bring 
 peace to a distracted Church.* There were some, in- 
 
 * Shortly after the provisions of the bill were known in Glasgow, the author 
 happened to have a friendly interview with a brother clergyman, who has 
 since attained and now occupies an eminent position in the Free Church, at 
 which the merits of the measure were discussed, and approbation of it as a 
 whole expressed by both. So much were we impressed with the conviction 
 that the measure was such as ought to be acquiesced in, that we agreed 
 without delay to put ourselves in the way of meeting with other brethren to 
 explain to them our views, and, if possible, to gain a statement from them 
 of like acquiescence. We set out together for that purpose, but, alas, our 
 efforts were an hour too late. We were just commencing when the ortho- 
 dox interpretation arrived from the East. It was given by one who spoke 
 with authority — by one whom both my friend and I respected. His inter- 
 pretation did not alter my views. I retained my own opinion, and have 
 never since seen cause to change it. It was otherwise, however, with my 
 friend ; though not in general characterised bj' pliancy of judgment or want 
 of pertinacity, on that occasion he was mute. The oracle had spoken, and 
 never since that day, I believe, has he viewed the bill with any semblance 
 of favour. Often has he manfully opposed the attempts of innovating bre- 
 
234 AT FIRST FAVOURED, THEN REJECTED. 
 
 deed, who paused. They could not condemn, but neither 
 durst they venture to approve. They could find no 
 flaws in the provisions of the bill, as far as they under- 
 stood them, but they were ready to defer to the judg- 
 ment of the leaders, and they must wait till the autho- 
 ritative interpretation should be given forth. That in- 
 terpretation was not long withheld. The bill was found 
 insidious, intruding, and Erastian. The Assembly's Com- 
 mittee had been deceived. Instead of affording protec- 
 tion from the unhallowed interference of the civil courts, 
 the measure only opened up more widely a highway to 
 invasion. It was a mockery and an insult ; and the 
 noble author of the bill was publicly denounced as at- 
 tempting " to hurl the Redeemer from His throne," and 
 " to tear the crown from the Saviour's head." 
 
 The violence of those who thus denounced the mea- 
 sure and calumniated its author, tended to render, for 
 the time, a healing measure impossible. The corre- 
 spondence upon the subject between the Earl and Dr. 
 Chalmers had been still continued, and there was even 
 yet the prospect of a satisfactory result. " The proposed 
 measure of Lord Aberdeen," says Dr. Bryce, *' was now 
 admitted by Dr. Chalmers, as allowing the Presbytery 
 to give effect to the popular veto upon the reasons. 
 Of these reasons the Church courts were to be the 
 judges, and against their judgment there was to be no 
 appeal to the civil courts. The sentence was ^to tak 
 
 thren in his Presbytery, and Synod, and General Assembly, but never has 
 he regained confidence in his own opinion of the bill, or ventured to moot 
 what at first, and in his own unbiassed judgment, he believed to be the real 
 import and value of the measure. 
 
VIOLENTLY OPPOSED. 235 
 
 end' as fullj on the question of ^Take on trials or 
 not,' as, under the Act 1567, is the Presbytery's deliver- 
 ance as to the presentee's qualifications in literature, 
 life, and doctrine ; and it might surely have been hoped 
 that there was, at length, no such gulf between them, 
 as to render further approximation and ultimate agree- 
 ment a matter of very diflScult achievement. And 
 when it is recollected that whatever power of rejec- 
 tion, on other grounds than the arbitrary dissent of the 
 people, Presbyteries might then possess, would not, ac- 
 cording to Lord Aberdeen's interpretation of his bill, 
 be at all affected, the road to a speedy and harmonious 
 adjustment seemed to be opening up on all hands. 
 Circumstances, however, occurred at this time to cast 
 a shade over these brightening prospects, and to give 
 token that Lord Aberdeen's truly patriotic endeavours 
 to heal the distractions of the Kirk would, for the pre- 
 sent at least, be defeated, even after all the concessions 
 he had made, and which Dr. Chalmers was willing to 
 receive. The subject of his bill was taken up by the 
 Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale, which met only a 
 few days before the General Assembly; and the lead- 
 ing members of the non-intrusion phalanx in the Church 
 had an opportunity, which they hastened to embrace, 
 of stating their views and resolutions in regard to it. 
 The proceedings of this very reverend body shewed, 
 that all the concessions made by Lord Aberdeen — all 
 his readiness to innovate on the law and practice of the 
 Church, in order as far as possible to meet the views of 
 the Non-intrusionists — were regarded with anything 
 
236 ASSEMBLY 1840. 
 
 but gratitude or candour by those who now ruled the 
 counsels of the Church of Scotland." * 
 
 At the ensuing General Assembly, the bill, after 
 lengthened discussion of the subject, was rejected by a 
 large majority ; and, on the 10th of July, it was re- 
 luctantly withdrawn by its noble proposer. 
 
 To that decision of the Assembly we look back with 
 feelings of deep regret. Of course, in these feelings, 
 we cannot expect the sympathy of those who, holding 
 extreme views on the two great questions of the period, 
 felt themselves conscientiously constrained to oppose 
 any measure which did not, in their opinion, make 
 provision for the full establishment of both. But, 
 believing, as we do, that the bill left entire these two 
 principles, as recognised by the Church in her earlier 
 and better days, we cannot but deplore a decision 
 which, had it been different, might have prevented the 
 breaking up of many sacred friendships and the sunder- 
 ing of many holy ties, and secured to the Church of 
 our fathers the services of many holy men, now 
 strangers to our Zion, if not indeed enemies to her 
 peace. 
 
 All was done that principle would permit, to disarm 
 the hostility of the leaders of the Church and gain their 
 acquiescence in the measure proposed. The moderate 
 party, though the principle of the bill opposed what 
 had been their practice during a long period of their 
 power, offered no opposition. The noble promoter of 
 the bill intimated to the Assembly, through a member, 
 
 * Bryce, vol. i., pp. 189, 190. 
 
CONCESSIONS OFFEEED IN YAIN. 237 
 
 his readiness, with respect to certain terms to which 
 special objection had been taken, to withdraw these 
 words, or any part of them, although they had been 
 selected because they were the words of Dr. Chalmers's 
 own motion, in the Assembly 1833 : " Such was the 
 desire of Lord Aberdeen to meet the wishes of the 
 Church, as expressed by the Non-intrusion Committee, 
 that he was willing to adopt any suggestion to provide 
 for the spiritual independence demanded, it being 
 always understood that the Church courts acted within 
 the law, and were not guilty of excess of power." 
 
 These concessions, however, were all in vain. So 
 emphatically had the measure been already condemned, 
 that men, not of the boldest cast, were afraid to think 
 well of it. A word uttered in its praise was a depart- 
 ure from the soundness of the faith. Many, even of 
 those who had begun to distrust the measures of the 
 leadership, and had assumed the right of judging for 
 themselves, were led, by the very boldness of the de- 
 nunciations employed, to question the soundness of their 
 own opinions ; and the whole controversy, which now 
 had raged so fiercely and so long, had tended to blind 
 the eyes of many to the true nature of those principles 
 which our fathers had maintained. The eyes of many 
 were only beginning to open. They had not yet begun 
 fully to perceive that the non-intrusion and independ- 
 ence now demanded were something essentially different 
 from those principles as contended for of old, and as 
 acknowledged both in the constitution and the practice 
 of our Church in her earlier days. However, the confer- 
 
238 VIEWS CHANGE. 
 
 ences now ended had brought the matter to such a 
 point, that men were in better circumstances to com- 
 pare the two. The hair-splitting distinctions of the 
 conferrers had fixed men's attention more accurately 
 to the subject than when their minds had been directed 
 only to the enunciation of general principles ; and, 
 strong though the majority in the Assembly had been, 
 there were among those who had swelled its numbers, 
 and who had even strengthened the rejection with 
 something more than a silent vote, some who, ere 
 long, were led to question the validity of the grounds 
 on which they had been induced to take their stand, 
 and who soon were brouorht to the conviction, which 
 they did not fail to express, that the ruin of the Estab- 
 lished Church of Scotland was far too heavy a price to 
 pay for the difference between what it had been in 
 their power to obtain, and what it would have been 
 agreeable, and perhaps even beneficial, to demand. 
 
 It is by considerations such as these that we are to 
 explain the conduct of some who, at this stage, repudi- 
 ated a measure in which, with some modifications, at a 
 future period, they found themselves at liberty to ac- 
 quiesce. In common with too many, they still clung 
 tenaciously to the idea that the legislature must sooner 
 or later yield to what they had not yet discovered to 
 be an ambitious and unreasonable demand. With that 
 conviction, they rejected the less, while they hoped to 
 obtain the greater benefit. Too confident in the judg- 
 ment, and assured of the purity of the motives of those 
 with whom they acted, they would not look at the true 
 
SEVERE REMARKS BY DR. BRYCE. 239 
 
 consequences of the full establishment of those prin- 
 ciples to which they had pledged themselves. With 
 these parties the author of " Ten Years of the Church 
 of Scotland" has no sympathy. He can make no 
 allowance for the peculiarity of the circumstances in 
 which they found themselves placed. "Not a few," 
 says Dr. Bryce, " who, in 1843, received the bill of the 
 noble Lord with all manner of thankfulness, had been 
 among the number of those who, in 1840, sternly 
 regarded it as a mockery of the Church and her 
 independence. The reflection is forced upon us by 
 this fact, that, if the ministers of the non-intrusion 
 phalanx, who, on the secession taking place, in 1843, 
 remained within the Establishment, satisfied with the 
 Scotch Benefice Act of that period, had joined with 
 the moderate party, in 1840, in receiving the very 
 same, or a very similar settlement of the question, 
 instead of joining that party in refusing it, the peace of 
 the Church would then, in all probability, have been 
 restored, and the unfortunate events that afterwards 
 occurred would have been prevented. How much of 
 the responsibility of these occurrences lies at the door 
 of these men, is a question that may well be asked. 
 However it may be answered, an instructive lesson 
 may be learned from the conduct of those who, halting 
 between two opinions, where principles are so promi- 
 nent as to leave no room for hesitation to honest men, 
 see not, after all, how to avail themselves of that ^ tide 
 in the aflfairs ' of Churches, as of men, ' Avhich, taken at 
 the full, leads on to victory,' and are deservedly re- 
 
240 NOT CALLED FOR. 
 
 garded as clogging rather than adorning the triumph of 
 the party uniformly consistent and ultimately success- 
 ful." * 
 
 To the sentiments contained in the former part of 
 this extract we do, in many respects, heartily consent. 
 The rejection of the measure in 1840 we cordially 
 deplored. The consent given to it by the party whom 
 Dr. Bryce represented, we considered as a laudable 
 concession for the sake of peace — a magnanimous con- 
 cession on the part "of many of the most able and 
 well-informed ministers of the Church," who " regarded 
 the bill as recognising a greater liberum arhitrium in 
 the Church courts of Scotland than ever was legally 
 vested in them, or ought, in good policy, to be be- 
 stowed upon them," but " who did not, however, think 
 it expedient, on that account, to place themselves in 
 opposition to it," f and inasmuch as the bill did virtu- 
 ally condemn what had been too much the practice of 
 the party for many years. % 
 
 But, from the concluding sentiments of the extract, 
 we, with all deference, dissent. The charge implied in 
 the allusion to principles " so prominent as to leave no 
 room for hesitation to honest men," is not generous, 
 and was uncalled for. It was probably suggested by 
 
 * Vol. ii., pp. 22, 23. t Ibid., vol. i., p. 193. 
 
 \ Dr. Cook, in his speech on the call question, in the Assembly 1833, and 
 often elsewhere, frankly admits that the constitutional rights of the people 
 had for a long period been too much overlooked, and that, " for man}' years 
 the power of Church courts had been practically narrowed, and it had come 
 to be held that, in general, when there was no deficiency of literature, or 
 conduct, or doctrine, a presentee Avas entitled to be admitted, whatever 
 other objections might be made against him." 
 
BILL OF MIDDLE PAKTY. 241 
 
 the fact, of which, elsewhere, Dr. Bryce seems only too 
 conscious, that these men did avail themselves of that 
 " tide " in the affairs of men " which, taken at the full, 
 leads on to victory." This very circumstance, perhaps, 
 is that which, in the eyes of Dr. Bryce, constitutes the 
 real " head and front of their offending." These men 
 have never yet claimed the honour of " adorning the 
 triumph" of the party whom Dr. Bryce lauds as " uni- 
 formly consistent." On the contrary, they claimed the 
 triumph as very much their own ; and, while good taste 
 would probably prevent them from speaking of any 
 party as '' clogging that triumph," they know that, on 
 the part of a few, that assent was not spontaneous and 
 cordial, which was given to the measure wdiich marks 
 their triumph and secures the great principle, as of old 
 declared by the Chm'ch, "that no man shall be in- 
 truded contrary to the will of the congregation." 
 
 We wish not to defend inconsistency. We were 
 grieved that the eyes of some whom we respect were 
 not sooner opened to the practical results of those ex- 
 treme views which, for a time, they w^ere led to adopt. 
 But, whether it w^as that their own opinions were 
 moditied, or that the modifications in the measure, as 
 ultimately introduced and carried, were found sufficient 
 to satisfy their conscientious scruples, we respectfully 
 repudiate the insinuations which the Doctor's expres- 
 sions convey, and we refer to his own, sometimes rather 
 bitter, complainings of neglect of his party by the men 
 in power, in the framing and passing of the Scotch 
 Benefice Act, and to his declaration that " it belongs of 
 
 Q 
 
242 BANNER RAISED. 
 
 right to a middle party, who appear to have been re- 
 presented to Government as speaking the mind of the 
 Church of Scotland," * as the best of all proofs that the 
 triumph did not belong to the party whom Dr. Bryce 
 represents as "uniformly consistent and ultimately 
 successful." 
 
 The admissions of Dr. Bryce on this matter are of 
 the greatest importance. They clearly indicate the fact 
 that the ultimate triumph belonged to neither of the 
 extremes, bat to that party, so often and so much 
 maligned, who, during the progress of the fierce con- 
 test, fell back upon the constitutional privileges of the 
 Church, and became, in God's good providence, tlie in- 
 struments of her preservation. At first they were but 
 a feeble baud, spurned by many, and distrusted by not 
 a few ; but when at length they calmly unfurled their 
 banner, a multitude gradually gathered around it — 
 perhaps, in some respects, a " mixed multitude," — but 
 a multitude comprising very many on whose character 
 and sincerity the breath of suspicion has never lighted. 
 The quiet movements of men, at first only a handful, 
 attracted the notice of waverers, and of those through- 
 out the Church who, agreeing with them in their views, 
 were only waiting the opportunity of making their sen- 
 timents known, and of emancipating themselves from 
 the despotism of an ecclesiastical oligarchy, whose 
 efforts, if successful, threatened to spoil them of their 
 privileges and subvert the Church. Their efforts were 
 successful. The banner which they displayed became 
 
 * Vol. ii., p 407 
 
THE SAYING OF NOT A FEW. 243 
 
 a rallying point. It was the saving of not a few. And 
 although some were tardy in indicating their adherence, 
 and some, indeed, hoping for another mode of extrica- 
 tion, delayed, until the question became "secede" or 
 "remain," it gave encouragement and opportunity to 
 those who, though anxious for what they considered 
 more liberal measures, had never been led to contem- 
 plate this new alternative as the question upon which 
 they were to be called on ultimately to decide. A few, 
 indeed, who ventured to the very brink of the precipice, 
 but shuddering recoiled from the leap, and availed them- 
 selves of the offered shelter, may, to borrow the figure 
 of Dr. Bryce, have, in the opinion of some, "clogged 
 rather than adorned the triumph of the party ultimately 
 successful." But those w^ho first raised this standard 
 of independence, in spite of partial discouragements, 
 have doubtless felt that they have reaped a glorious re- 
 ward, in that they can claim some share at least in the 
 peaceful settlement w^hich tends to protect the now 
 acknowledged rights of the Christian people, and which 
 preserved to the Church of Scotland the services of 
 many whose character and attainments would do honour 
 to any Church of Christ. 
 
 To this subject we shall have occasion afterwards to 
 recur. Meanwhile, proceed we to note the subsequent 
 progress of the negotiations. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 Other Attempts at Extrication — Duke of Arcjyle's Bill — Dissatisfaction 
 ■with Conduct of Leaders — Movement in the West — Sir George Sinclair's 
 Negotiations — Conduct of Non-intrusion Committee — Stand made by 
 Minority of Committee — " The Forty " — Their Position Misrepresented — 
 Occupied Ground of High Principle — " Middle jParty " — Probable Rea- 
 son why Committee Changed their Ground — Case of the Strathbogie 
 Brethren. 
 
 The bill of Lord Aberdeen having been condemned 
 by the General Assembly, and withdrawn by the noble 
 mover, who did not press it to a second reading, the 
 next attempt at extrication of the Church from her 
 pressing difficulties Avas on the part of his Grace the 
 Duke of Argyle, who, with this patriotic view, on the 
 6th of May 1841, introduced a bill into the Ilouse of 
 Lords. 
 
 Of this measure little need now be said. It afforded 
 to its supporters only a passing gleam of hope, speedily 
 succeeded by darkness as dense and distressing as be- 
 fore. Dr. Buchanan indicates the opinion that, had 
 the moderate party, in that Assembly which ensued, 
 expressed anything like acquiescence in the measure, 
 it might have passed the legislature, and become the 
 means of restoring peace to the distracted Church. 
 Doubts may be entertained on both these points. On 
 the moderate side, no one who took part in the discus- 
 sion gave utterance to any sentiment from which it 
 
DUKE OF ARGYLE's BILL. 245 
 
 could have been inferred that, had the bill become law, 
 they could not have conformed their ecclesiastical pro- 
 cedure to its provisions. But surely it was too much 
 to expect that they should join in petitioning for a 
 measure, against the leading provisions of which they 
 had solemnly protested, and to which, though they 
 could submit to them, they were in many respects 
 opposed. Besides, the majority in favour of the mea- 
 sure being more than two to one, was amply suffi- 
 cient, had the prospect been favourable in other re- 
 spects, to have warranted the noble Duke in proceeding 
 with his measure ; or, as Dr. Buchanan himself ex- 
 presses it, "ought to have carried Aveight in Parlia- 
 ment." 
 
 The measure embodied, to a great extent, the pro- 
 visions of the Veto law : it was in fact that law, with 
 certain modifications. On one point it was more libe- 
 ral than the Veto, and approximated more nearly to 
 the non-intrusion principle, as held by the leaders of 
 the Church, inasmuch as it did not restrict the right 
 of objecting " to the male heads of families being com- 
 municants," but extended it to the " major part of the 
 male parishioners, or members of the congregation." 
 On another, it was less so, and seriously objectionable — 
 providing that, while no reasons of dissent should be 
 required, the Presbytery should nevertheless be bound to 
 judge of the motives of the objectors — one clause of the 
 bill beino^ in the following: terms : " It shall in all cases 
 be incumbent on the Presbytery, before pronouncing 
 any final deliverance in the said call, to take such 
 
246 DISSATISFACTION WITH MAJORITY. 
 
 means as to them shall seem most expedient to ascer- 
 tain that the dissent of the major part of the male com- 
 municants, as aforesaid, does not proceed from factious 
 or malicious motives." 
 
 The Duke withdrew his bill before it reached a second 
 reading, and the prospects of the Church were once 
 more as gloomy as before. 
 
 Long before this, as already intimated, dissatisfaction 
 with the proceedings of the dominant majority in the 
 Church had been felt and expressed by not a few who 
 had never been recognised as belonging to the mode- 
 rate party, and who anxiously desired the restoration 
 and full acknowledgment of the constitutional rights of 
 the Christian people. They had consented to some of 
 the early measures of the party now dominant in the 
 Church, under the belief that these implied no violation 
 of the Church's constitution, and no invasion of the 
 civil province. But, during the progress of the contest 
 that ensued — and, in the case of some, at a very earl}^ 
 period of that contest — their attention had been more 
 carefully directed to an examination of the principles in 
 question, and to the views entertained by the founders 
 of the Church, and embodied in her recognised stan- 
 dards ; and that examination had convinced them that 
 the extreme views now propounded and acted on were 
 unconstitutional and full of peril. 
 
 They were convinced that the non-intrusion now 
 contended for, however desirable it might be, was not 
 the non-intrusion of the Church of Scotland; and, while 
 some of them would gladly have united in constitu- 
 
LOXGINGS FOR PEACE. 247 
 
 tlonal endeavours, not merely to check, but to uproot 
 the system of patronage, they believed it to be the 
 duty of the Church to retrace, at all hazards, those 
 steps which, under misinformation, and misled by high 
 authorities, she had taken, and to seek other means of 
 vindicating what she believed to be the privileges of 
 her people. 
 
 So long as the hope could reasonably be entertained 
 of a measure being granted by Parliament which might 
 enable the Church to regulate her proceedings without 
 the formal repeal of the illegal Veto, and without hazard 
 of collision with the courts of law, they were contented 
 to remain silent, although there were those among 
 them who believed that the rejected bill of Lord Aber- 
 deen would practically have been, as a non-intrusion 
 measure, preferable to the Veto. That hope, however, 
 they could no longer entertain. Again and again 
 negotiations had been tried, and had failed. The pro- 
 spect of settlement seemed now as distant as ever. 
 The difficulties of the Chm-ch seemed more perplex- 
 ing every day ; and the illegal Veto was the acknow- 
 ledged source from which they sprung — the Pandora's 
 box whence had been emitted the strifes and conten- 
 tions, the dangers and threatenings, the interdicts and 
 depositions, which had made a Church, but lately the 
 glory of Christendom, a spectacle to be pointed at by 
 ungodly men with the finger of scorn, and had con- 
 verted her solemn Assemblies into arenas of bitter con- 
 tentions, to which eager crowds betook themselves to 
 enjoy the excitement of their stormy debates. The 
 
248 INCOXSISTE>XIES OF DEMANDS. 
 
 peace of families was being broken — tlie ties o friend- 
 ship dissolved. Practically, non-intrusion had been 
 offered — non-intrusion to the full as liberal as had at 
 any period been enjoyed. The contest was for an 
 abstract principle, in itself of no value and no import- 
 ance, except as practically applied, but to which, in a 
 novel sense, the Church had unwittingly committed 
 herself, and from Avhich her leaders thought she could 
 not by a hairbreadth resile without sacrificing her 
 valued independence. This was really the secret of 
 the contest ; and the views of her leading men on this 
 point had now so distinctly developed themselves, that 
 many who had endeavoured to shut their eyes to the 
 fact could no longer resist the conviction, that to 
 satisfy their full demands would be to establish a sys- 
 tem of spiritual despotism — a system at least which, if 
 duly developed, would amount to nothing less. Their 
 demands, indeed, were, to this extent, inconsistent with 
 themselves —that they had sought from the legislature 
 a non-intrusion measure which should bind and reau- 
 late their own proceedings in all time to come, while, 
 at the same time, they repudiated Avhatever miglit hin- 
 der the Church from at any time " adjusting alike her 
 creed and her administration" according to her own 
 views — that is, they sought a non-Intrusion enactment 
 by the civil power to regulate their proceedings as an 
 ecclesiastical body, while at the same time they claimed 
 the inherent right of regulating these matters as they 
 might choose ; or, yet in other words, they petitioned 
 for a measure which should clearly limit their spiritual 
 
FIRST MOVEMENT IN THE WEST. 249 
 
 independence, while yet they demanded that that inde- 
 pendence should remain inviolate.* 
 
 These topics had long been made the subject of fre- 
 quent and earnest conversation among a number of the 
 clergy in the vrest of Scotland. As individuals they 
 had determined to take no share in the doings of that 
 party who now ruled the affairs of the Church ; but it 
 now appeared to several of them that the time had 
 come when it was their duty to make their sentiments 
 publicly known, believing, as they had reason to do, 
 that these sentiments w^ere entertained by many 
 throughout the Church. They would probably have 
 preferred a movement in their several Presbyteries for 
 the repeal of the Veto, w^iich they believed to be the 
 
 * The Duke of Wellington's statement, in his communication to Lord 
 Aberdeen, has been often quoted, and referred to with approbation, by the 
 leaders of the movement party. " In the exercise of this exclusive power," 
 says the Duke, "particularly of those branches thereof which have relation 
 with the municipal power of the State, it is very desirable, and not incon- 
 sistent with former practice, that the Kirk shoiild state clearly the rule 
 which it is proposed to adopt, that that rule should be made the subject of 
 an Act of Parliament, and should regulate all such questions in future." 
 " It is plain," says Dr. Buchanan, " that the Duke, with that almost intuitive 
 sagacity for Avhich he is so remarkable, had mastered the true theory of the 
 Church and State s^ystem of Scotland." We believe he had. But after an 
 Act of Parliament is j^d-'^sed to regulate all such questions, where is the ideal 
 independence of the Church, and her right to adjust her administration as 
 she may see meet? Who is to interpret the Act.' If the Church violate 
 the Act, and refuse to regulate all such questions by it, must the civil 
 power stand by and see its solemn Acts treated as so much idle sound ? 
 We assert that if it be no Erastianism in the State to pass such an Act, it 
 can be no Erastianism to enforce it. The intuitive sagacity of the Duke 
 would never contemplate the passing of an Act to be observed or not, 
 according to the pleasure or caprice of those whose proceedings it was to 
 regulate. The idea is absurd; and the idle invention about " civil effects," 
 and " fruits of the benefice," was worthy only of men who would attempt 
 to reconcile impossibilities — who felt that they were put to their shifts, and 
 were ready to catch at a straw for help. 
 
250 PUEPOSE OF MOYEMEXT. 
 
 first step requisite towards a satisfactory extrication of 
 the Church from her present difficulties — but that they 
 considered would be a hopeless attempt. Though many 
 agreed with them in sentiment, matters, they felt con- 
 vinced, were not ripe for such proceedings. Such at- 
 tempts would have produced only a series of defeats, 
 and would have injured rather than benefited the object 
 w'hich they had in view\ They were aware that there 
 was a widely spread dissatisfaction with the proceedings 
 of the men in power, but few, they knew, would be 
 bold enough individually to encounter the storm of 
 obloquy and ridicule which such scattered endeavours 
 would call forth, together with the anticipation of pro- 
 bable defeat. They knew that it required the charm 
 of numbers, and the consciousness of ready support, and 
 some likelihood of success, to bring men, in such cir- 
 cumstances, up to the point of boldly declaring their 
 sentiments. Many would shrink from putting forth 
 individual and unsupported efforts, who would willingly 
 take their share in a movement in which numbers were 
 united. And they knew, moreover, that the great argu- 
 ment employed to check any incipient symptoms of dissa- 
 tisfaction or distrust, was, that if only no such symptoms 
 were permitted to become visible, ultimate triumph was 
 certain — an argument, the futility of which they were con- 
 vinced of, while they knew that its success was great in 
 producing outward quiescence where much inward mur- 
 muringprevailed,and an argument of which,by their move- 
 ment, they hoped to deprive those who employed it to 
 keep under thraldom many who were groaning to be free. 
 
EEPEAL OF VETO. 251 
 
 In these circumstances, after earnest private con- 
 ference, and with a view to pave the way towards 
 a movement in the Church courts, where individual 
 effort should be strengthened by the consciousness of 
 sympathy and aid, and by a better hope of success, 
 a meeting of ministers connected with the Synod of 
 Glasgow and Ayr convened in Glasgow in September 
 1841, and drew up a "Declaration regarding the Veto 
 Act," expressive of their firm conviction that it was the 
 imperative duty of the Church to repeal that obnoxious 
 statute, and their determination, " by every proper 
 effort, to procure its speedy abolition." * 
 
 The "Declaration" was immediately printed and cir- 
 culated to a considerable extent. Although some, who 
 had not scrupled to express their dissatisfaction with 
 the measures taken by the leaders of the Non-intrusion 
 party, and their opinion that the Veto law was unten- 
 able and ought to be expunged from the statute-book of 
 the Church, refused their concurrence at the time, yet 
 a goodly array of signatures was speedily appended. 
 The effort promised to be successful in the chief object 
 which its promoters had in view. It was in the course 
 of signature by ministers throughout the Church, when 
 it became understood that the Government, then newly 
 entered upon office, were about to introduce a healing 
 measure. "The consequent negotiations between the 
 Government and the Non-intrusion Committe in Edin- 
 burgh — which, for a time, all were induced to believe, 
 
 * This Declaration was subsequently published by the late Eev. Mr. 
 Morren, in his "Church Politics," pp. 13, 14. 
 
252 MOVEMENT INTERRUPTED. 
 
 would be effective, and which some still confidently 
 hold might have been so, without the smallest sacrifice 
 of principle — brought the matter to an end." * 
 
 We have now to advert to these negotiations and to 
 their result. 
 
 Although the Duke of Argyle had found it necessary 
 to withdraw the bill which he had introduced in the 
 House of Lords, his Grace, at an interview held with 
 the Non-intrusion Committee in Edinburgh on the 16th 
 July 1841, indicated his determination to re-introduce 
 it at the beginning of the ensuing year. Meanwhile, 
 as soon as the new Government was formed, a large and 
 influential deputation from the Committee waited on 
 the Premier, and laid before him a statement of the case 
 of the Church. Sir Robert Peel gave them no encou- 
 ragement. " That man," said Dr. Gordon, chairman of 
 the deputation, to one of the members, as they came 
 out from the interview — " that man will never sanction 
 the independent jurisdiction of the Church." The ve- 
 nerable chairman was right. Neither that man nor any 
 
 * It is scarcely needful to remark that this movement was long previous 
 to and could have no immediate connexion with the movement of the 
 "Forty," which had direct reference to the scheme of adjustment proposed 
 by Sir George Sinclair. The author, who had some slight connexion with 
 both movements, but especially the former, failed in his application to se- 
 veral in behalf of it, who aiterwards took a leading part in the eftbrts of 
 the latter. It required the development which occurred in the negotiations 
 connected with Sir George's famous " clause " to arouse them fully on the 
 subject. W'e bear them witness that they were sincerely attached to the 
 cause which the leaders had espoused, and were only driven from their 
 adherence by a conviction which they could not resist. They yielded step 
 by step, fighting every inch, until at length, contrary to their own che- 
 rished feelings, they found themselves, by the stern demands of conscience, 
 removed to such a distance from those with whom they had associated, that 
 adherence was impossible. 
 
STATESMEN UNDEKSTOOD THE QUESTION. 253 
 
 other statesman of note, of whatever political views, had 
 ever ventured to indicate the hope of granting such in- 
 dependent jurisdiction as the party now demanded. 
 
 It was not, as they so often alleged, that these states- 
 men could not be made to comprehend the nature of 
 the question, and the extent of the demand. These 
 they understood full well. They must have been dull 
 indeed, if they did not, after the means which had been 
 taken to enlio-hten them. It was one of the marvels of 
 this strange controversy, that the leaders entertained 
 the belief, and reiterated it throughout, that they could 
 not indoctrinate the legislature into their views, nor, by 
 all their efforts, get men of understanding to compre- 
 hend their meanino;. The delusion was a strans^e one. 
 These men understood the subject thoroughly. They 
 could not, indeed, reconcile contradictory dogmas. But 
 they had thoroughly mastered the questions in dispute. 
 They knew the nature of the demands made upon them. 
 They knew the consequence to which, if granted, these 
 demands might ultimately lead. These the history of 
 the past declared. And when the subject came at last 
 to be fully discussed in Parliament, their lucid state- 
 ments undeniably indicated that they had given it the 
 most minute and painstaking attention — that they had 
 grappled with, and grasped, and mastered the whole 
 subject, and understood it in all its bearings, better far 
 than many whose professional prejudices, or w^hose 
 habits of partial pleading, had led them unconsciously 
 to take a one-sided view of the questions in dispute. 
 There was, however, no even plausible way of explain- 
 
254 ALL REJECT THE CHURCH'S CLAIMS. 
 
 ing the uniform rejection of the Church's claims by 
 the most able men of every political creed, except by 
 insinuating that the subject was not understood by 
 them ; and many a devout follower accepted the ex- 
 planation, and believed that the questions were too 
 sacred and spiritual to be comprehended by men of the 
 world — belonging, in short, to those things which the 
 world cannot understand. 
 
 Such was the position of affairs when Sir George 
 Sinclair, a friend of the Church, and one who had 
 shewn great interest in the cause of the people's rights, 
 perceiving the imminent danger to which the Church 
 was exposed — for obviously her very existence was 
 now threatened — proffered his mediation between the 
 contending parties. 
 
 We need not detail the preliminary steps of his 
 benevolent neo-otiations. Thou2;h interestins; enouo-h, 
 and indicating very clearly the patriotic and Christian 
 zeal of the negotiator, we pass them over as not neces- 
 sary to our full understanding either of the enterprise 
 or its results. Dr. Buchanan refers to the neo-otiation 
 as "an incident which, for some time, involved the 
 Committee in very considerable embarrassment and 
 perplexity, and wliich, in its indirect results, materially 
 injured, and ultimately destroyed, the Church's pro- 
 spects of a peaceful and satisfactory settlement." *' 
 
 To the former of these statements we assent. It was 
 the occasion, as will afterwards appear, of involving the 
 Committee in much embarrassment and perplexity. 
 
 • Vol. ii., p. 4G3. 
 
SIR GEORGE SINCLAIR. 255 
 
 To the latter we demur; 1st, because, at the time, the 
 Church had really no prospect ^vhatever of a peaceful 
 and satisfactory settlement, nor, as far as can be seen, 
 ever would have had, so long as those who then guided 
 her affairs retained their undisputed influence ; and, 2d, 
 because a peaceful and satisfactory settlement was 
 actually obtained, and because its attainment was, to 
 some extent at least, aided by that same embarrassing 
 and perplexing incident. 
 
 Taking as the basis of his proposed settlement the 
 bill of Lord Aberdeen — which, as former negotiations 
 indicated, might, by a very simple modification, or 
 addition, or explanatory clause, be rendered acceptable 
 to the Committee to this extent, at least, that, while it 
 was not the measure which they would themselves 
 propose or prefer, it, neverthless, was one to which 
 they could conscientiously submit — Sir George sug- 
 gested the introduction of a clause in one of the 
 sections of the bill, which, in the sense above explained, 
 did meet the approbation of the Committee. To pre- 
 vent mistake, we give the clause as quoted by the 
 Committee themselves, in the following extract from 
 their minutes : — 
 
 " 1st October 1841. — The Committee had under 
 their consideration a proposal relative to the bill of 
 Lord Aberdeen, to the effect of its being modified by 
 the introduction of the following clause in section 2, 
 after the words, 'reasons or objections,' — viz., 'or in 
 respect that the said reasons or objections, though not 
 in the judgment of the Presbytery of themselves con- 
 
256 COMMITTEE ENTERTAIN PROPOSAL. 
 
 elusive, are entertained by such a proportion of the 
 parishioners as, in the opinion of the Presbytery, to 
 preclude the prospect of the presentee's usefulness in 
 that particular parish.' " 
 
 Such was the celebrated, or, as Dr. Buchanan styles 
 it, "the memorable and miserable clause" — "memorable" 
 assuredly to many, and "miserable" to not a few. 
 
 It was presented to the Committee, in the first 
 instance, simply in the shape of a private and un- 
 authorised suggestion, and, when so presented, was 
 very properly viewed with extreme caution, the Com- 
 mittee not feeling " themselves at liberty to give any 
 reply to an application of this nature not sanctioned by 
 Government." Even when so presented, however, the 
 Committee must have given it their serious attention, 
 for in their instructions to their secretary, then in Lon- 
 don, and authorised to act in their behalf, while they 
 fail not to speak of the bill thus modified as still 
 " so defective and objectionable, that the Church could 
 never undertake the responsibility of proposing it as 
 her own," they nevertheless indicate their opinion that 
 such a measure must, in so far, " be a great benefit to 
 the Church and to the country." Moreover, they sug- 
 gest a change in the wording of the clause, " for the 
 purpose of accomplishing the object intended," thus, in 
 a certain sense, adopting it as their own. And they 
 further instruct their secretary that, " if it shall appear 
 that this is the only measure which those in authority 
 are willing to grant, and that they are prepared to grant 
 it immediately, the Church, while she could not regard 
 
EXPRESS MODIFIED CONCURRENCE. 257 
 
 it as an adequate settlement of the question, might, and 
 certainly loould, consent to act under it, and to accommo- 
 date her ecclesiastical procedure to its provisions.''^ 
 
 These are intelligible statements, and need no com- 
 mentary. Speaking in the name of the Church — such is 
 the authority delegated to or assumed by the Com- 
 mittee — they declare the bill, modified by this clause, 
 though they would prefer a slight change in the ex- 
 pression, to be such that the Church might, and cer- 
 tainly would, consent to act under it. 
 
 Ere long, through the exertions of the negotiator, 
 the proposal is submitted somewhat more in an author- 
 itative and official manner, in the form of a question 
 suggested by Sir James Graham. The question is 
 ^io^v formally put — " Whether, in the event of a pro- 
 posal coming from her Majesty's Government, based 
 on the clause, . . . the Non-intrusion Committee 
 will accept it as a final settlement." 
 
 To this question a distinct reply is given. The 
 Committee, " in the event of its beino; found that her 
 Majesty's ministers have no intention to bring forward 
 any larger and more acceptable measure, .... 
 authorise Sir George Sinclair to intimate to the 
 Government the conviction of the Committee, that the 
 Church could conscientiously act under the measure as 
 modified in terms of the adjustment which Sir George 
 Sinclair has proposed — viz., the insertion of the words 
 suggested by Sir George Sinclair into the second clause 
 of Lord Aberdeen's bill; that the Church Avould ac- 
 commodate her ecclesiastical procedure to the provi- 
 
258 CONSENT TO MEASURE. 
 
 sions of such a measure ; and further, that the Church 
 woukl regard it, if immediately obtained, as a great 
 boon." . . . "The Committee are desirous of 
 suggesting, that for the purpose of fully accomplishing 
 the object intended, this measure may be framed in 
 such terms as the following : — ' Or in respect that the 
 said reasons and objections, though not in themselves 
 conclusive in the judgment of the Presbytery, are en- 
 tertained by such a proportion of the parishioners, and 
 entertained by them so strongly as to render it, in the 
 opinion of the Presbytery, taking into account the 
 reasons and objections as aforesaid, and the degree to 
 which they prevail, inconsistent with their duty, or with 
 the spiritual interests of the parish, to proceed with the 
 settlement of the presentee as minister of that particular 
 congregation.'" * Words could not have more explicitly 
 declared the willingness of the Committee to accept or 
 to submit to this measure than those wdiich they them- 
 selves employ. They would, no doubt, have preferred 
 another. That they repeat again and again — so often, 
 indeed, as to suggest the suspicion that they required 
 the reiteration to calm some rising misgivings, and to 
 satisfy either themselves or others that, notwithstanding 
 their giving up of their favourite dogma of non-intrusion 
 as by themselves explained, they still were sound at 
 heart. Nor, indeed, is this to be wondered at. Thei/ 
 had abandoned the dogma. They — " the Church " — had 
 consented to substitute the Presbyterial for the popular 
 Veto. Dissent without reasons was given up. IIow- 
 
 • Minutes of Committee, 2d October 1841. 
 
STRANGE CONDITION BY COMMITTEE. 259 
 
 ever strongly, and by how many so ever of the parish- 
 ioners, objections were entertained, the presentee might 
 be settled, if in the opinion of the Presbytery it was 
 not inconsistent with their duty to proceed with the 
 settlement. Such is the undeniable bearino- of their 
 own clause quoted above. Ingenuity tries in vain to 
 deny it. The Committee framed "this miserable 
 clause." They were ready to accept the measure as 
 a "great boon." They expressed their obligation to 
 Sir George Sinclair, and " their cordial wish that his 
 negotiations may be brought to a speedy and success- 
 ful termination." 
 
 One strange condition had been inserted by the Com- 
 mittee in their negotiations with the Government, viz., 
 that the bill should be carried immediately through the 
 legislature, before the rising of Parliament, a few days 
 only intervening for that purpose. The reason of this 
 somewhat curious condition it is rather difficult to 
 divine. Was it that the measure was considered, in ilie 
 circumstances, so good, that the Church could not have 
 the benefit of it a day too soon ? Partly so, we think. 
 Was it that the bill was, after all, like some nauseous 
 though salutary drug, which, when one must swallow, 
 he shuts his eyes, and does so Avith all possible haste, 
 congratulating himself that the deed is done ? Partly, 
 we suspect. Was it that the Committee, driven to their 
 shifts, wished the deed irrevocably settled before there 
 should be time for their constituents to express dissatis- 
 faction, as some, no doubt, would be inclined to do, and 
 leaving explanations to be given when the measure 
 
260 NEGOTIATION TERMINATES. 
 
 should be fairly passed ? Perhaps so, to some extent. 
 But whatever the motives may have been, that strange 
 condition did jxood service to the Committee. That sav- 
 ing stipulation could not be fulfilled, in consequence of 
 the impending prorogation of Parliament; and so, in the 
 meantime, the negotiation fell necessarily to the ground; 
 the Government on the one hand, and the Committee on 
 the other, being left at liberty respectively to change 
 their position, if either should see cause. 
 
 It is to be observed, however, that though this nego- 
 tiation was thus, in the meantime, terminated, no indi- 
 cation was given of any wish on the part of the Govern- 
 ment to resile from the measure proposed, or to with- 
 draw the clause to which the Committee had given their 
 concurrence. The Government and the Committee 
 had parted on the most friendly terms. It was under- 
 stood tliat the measure was still within the Church's 
 reach, although the Committee were now at liberty to 
 withdraw their concurrence, if they should see meet, 
 and to endeavour to ncG^otiate for what thev misjht 
 consider a more liberal and satisfactory settlement. 
 Nor had the Committee as yet indicated, on their part, 
 a wish to resile or to refuse the terms proposed ; 
 for in a memorandum to Sir James Graham, dated 
 8th October, drawn up " to preclude the possibility of 
 future misunderstanding on either side," while, as be- 
 fore, they distinctly declare their preference for another 
 mode of settlement, and state regarding the one pro- 
 posed, " that while it would have the eflfect of allowing 
 those who hold the principles now maintained by the 
 
BXWS OF HOPE. 261 
 
 Church to act in every case according to their con- 
 sciences, .... it does not adequately carry out the 
 principle of Non-intrusion in its full import." .... 
 And, " while it must ever be the Church's wish to oiye 
 the utmost possible attention to any proposal of her 
 Majesty's Government, she cannot take the respon- 
 sibility of originating or recommending as her own the 
 measure recently suggested." 
 
 These are very important statements, indicatino; 
 clearly the facts that, as formerly agreed to, the Com- 
 mittee, though they would not themselves propose or 
 originate such a measure, yet could conscientiously 
 accept it; and also that they could accept it, while 
 they were quite aware "that it did not adequately 
 carry out the principle of Xon-intrusion in its full im- 
 port." 
 
 Such, then, was the state of matters in October 1841. 
 Hope had begun to dawn. After a long and troublous 
 night of sorrow and danger, the streaks of morning 
 seemed beginning to appear, and men had begun to 
 hope that the clouds and darkness were passing away. 
 Peace, it was hoped, might now be looked for, and the 
 return of charity and brotherly love,— peace to dis- 
 united families, — peace to anxious cono-reo-ations, 
 
 peace to distracted Presbyteries,— peace to the Church. 
 Alas I the hope was vain. The end was not yet. The 
 evils which had gone before proved to be only the 
 beginning of sorrows. A raging sea had yet to be 
 passed through ere the haven could be reached. A 
 time of bitter tribulation was yet to precede the day 
 
262 CLOUDS RETURN. 
 
 ■vvlien there should be peace within Zion's walls, and 
 prosperity within her palaces. 
 
 It is with deep sorrow that one looks back to disap- 
 pointments such as this, when the gleam of promised 
 security and confidence gives place to the darkness of 
 dan O'er and distrust. But other feelino-s besides that 
 of sorrow are awakened when we demand the cause. 
 Few would like to be charged with so heavy a respon- 
 sibility. If an opportunity was now presented of set- 
 tlino' existino; differences, blame lies at the door of those 
 Avho, whether from pride, or obstinacy, or mistaken 
 principle, or ambition, or any other cause, refused to 
 embrace, or rather destroyed, that opportunity, and 
 blasted the gladdening prospect which was opening to 
 view. To them must, in a great measure, be ascribed 
 the desolations of Zion which ensued — the rancour and 
 evil-speaking — the breaking up of sacred friendships — 
 the deep distress which rent so many hearts — the jar- 
 rino's and distrust introduced into so many family- 
 circles — the separations from their flocks of so many 
 devoted ministers — the deplorable schism in the Church 
 of our fathers. We envy not the feelings of the men 
 whose consciences, despite of flattering unctions, may 
 uneasily whisper, ^'We are the men." And, on the 
 other hand, we cannot but congratulate those whose 
 memories can recall any efforts on their part, however 
 feeble, to prevent so disastrous an issue. 
 
 To whom, then, is this sore evil to be ascribed ? Is 
 it to the Government of the country? The Govern- 
 ment indicated no wish to modify or to withdraw from 
 
HOPE EXTINGUISHED. 263 
 
 the terms agreed upon. It was with difficulty that 
 they had been induced to yield so much, but never did 
 they retract. 
 
 Is it to the moderate party in the Church ? As a 
 party they Avere not consulted, and they made no 
 movement in the matter. They did not, indeed, ap- 
 prove of the measure, believing that it put too much 
 at the disposal of the Church courts, and might lead to 
 the exercise of tyranny. But this was the first conces- 
 sion which the opposite party had ever consented to 
 make, and they did not resist the compromise. 
 
 Is it to the " middle party ? " That party had not 
 yet appeared upon the field. As individuals, many of 
 them had long since taken up their ground ; but it was 
 after this deed was done that the efforts of that party 
 were specially called forth, to prevent, if possible, its 
 mischief, and to restore the hope which it was threaten- 
 ing to destroy. The deed was the deed of the Non- 
 intrusion Committee. 
 
 On the 31st December 1841, the Committee came 
 to the conclusion that the measure, which in the pre- 
 ceding October they had declared their willingness to 
 accept, was inadmissible. 
 
 At a conference of a deputation of the Committe 
 with the Solicitor-General, held on the 28th December, 
 Dr. Candlish demanded a measure giving to the Church 
 courts " absolute power to refuse to settle the presentee, 
 on the specific ground of the continued unwillingness of 
 the people to receive him, without regard to the reasons 
 assigned." Dr. Gordon explained ^'that if reasons 
 
264 C0M3IITTEE CHANGE THEIR VIEWS. 
 
 ■were stated, and that, after dealing with the people, 
 these reasons were abandoned or removed, but tliat the 
 aversion (or unwillingness to receive him, in contradis- 
 tinction from reasons) remained, the Presbytery should 
 have power to refuse to settle the presentee." 
 
 At their meeting on the 31at December the Commit- 
 tee homologated these views, solemnly finding, that a 
 measure expressed in equivalent, if not the very, terms 
 prescribed by themselves in October, and repeated by 
 them asrain and ao^ain, " cannot be resjarded as admis- 
 sible." And again, on the 12th January 1842, when 
 called on to reconsider their finding, and moved to 
 rescind their resolutions, they, by a large majority, as 
 before, adhered to the same. 
 
 An attempt was made to shew that a new interpre- 
 tation had been put on the terms to which the Com- 
 mittee had agreed in October, and that that new inter- 
 pretation now rendered the clause inadmissible. The 
 attempt was not successful. A comparison of the 
 terms of the clause, as proposed by Sir George Sinclair 
 and as amended by the Committee themselves, with 
 the terms of the motion made by Dr. Simpson at the 
 meeting on the 30th December, shews that no new in- 
 terpretation had been adopted. The simple truth is, 
 that between October and December the Committee 
 had changed their views. They had indeed for some 
 time indicated a ^^disposition to be quit of the negotia- 
 tions of October altogether." * No doubt they were 
 
 * These are the words of ^Ir. Ilof^ of Ncwliston. They remind us of the 
 statement of Dr. Chalmers, in his correspondence with Lord Aberdeen, 
 
AWKWARD POSITION OF COMMITTEE. 265 
 
 fully at liberty to do so if tiiey saw fit ; but it became 
 them, in that case, to admit that they had changed, 
 and not to profess that their views remained unaltered, 
 and that those who opposed them had taken up new 
 ground. AYe have difficulty in understanding how the 
 view could be taken up and held, that a bill providing 
 that a presentee might be rejected, " in respect of rea- 
 sons or objections being entertained by such a proportion 
 of the parishioners as, in the opinion of the Presbytery, 
 to preclude the prospect of his usefulness," ever could 
 mean " rejection, on the specific ground of unwilling- 
 ness, without respect to the reasons assigned ;^^ or, to adopt 
 the form of words suggested by the Committee them- 
 selves, "that in respect of reasons or objections being 
 entertained by such a proportion of the parishioners, 
 and entertained by them so strongly as to render it, 
 in the opinion of the Presbytery, taking into account the 
 reasons and objections as aforesaid^'' could mean, " with- 
 out respect to the reasons assigned^ This we cannot 
 understand, and that the more especially, that the 
 Committee had themselves in October admitted, that 
 the bill which they were ready to receive then, " as a 
 great boon," " did not adequately carry out the prin- 
 ciple of Non-intrusion in its full import, or in a manner 
 fully congenial to the character and constitution of the 
 Church." 
 
 We can come to no other conclusion than that the 
 
 that, during the progress of the negotiation, he had with uneasiness per- 
 ceived, on the part of the Committee, " a tendency to rise in their de- 
 mand." 
 
266 MANY REFUSE TO CHANGE WITH THEM. 
 
 views of the Committee had undergone a change. 
 They had done so more than once. In October they 
 had undergone a change, when "they could conscien- 
 tiously act under a measure" which "did not ade- 
 quately carry out the principle of Non-intrusion." And 
 before the 20th of December they had undergone 
 another change, when they could no longer regard the 
 same measure as "admissible." And thus, again, under 
 the new light which had dawned in December, or 
 rather the old light, which, after several flickerings, had 
 been extinguished, but now began to beam forth afresh, 
 the Committee resolutely returned to their old position, 
 determined either to obtain what they had already 
 asked in vain from successive administrations, and 
 ■what there was not even the most distant prospect of 
 obtaining, or to sacrifice to their own already damaged 
 consistency the venerable Church of tlieir fathers. 
 
 Meanwhile there were those within the Church, and 
 including many who were not less attached to the 
 cause of popular rights than were these leaders them- 
 selves, who were not inclined to follow the Committee 
 in their gyrations, and, since they considered the pro- 
 posed measure admissible, preferred the conscientious 
 views of the Committee in October, to the conscien- 
 tious views of the Committee in December. Symptoms 
 of the coming change had been observed by some of 
 these before the Committee had found it necessary 
 formally to stultify themsclvCw^, and, having never con- 
 cealed their readiness to concur with the Committee in 
 their October views, they felt averse to share in the 
 
DIVISION IX COMMITTEE. 267 
 
 stultification. But they were actuated by higher motives 
 than a mere regard to the opinion of others. They 
 believed that the Church of their fathers was exposed 
 to imminent danger — that her very existence was in 
 peril — that an opportunity had, in the providence of 
 God, been presented of averting that danger — an 
 opportunity which might never again occur, for the 
 dangers were necessarily increasing every hour; and 
 w^hen they saw those to whom the management of affairs 
 had been entrusted refusing to avail themselves of it, 
 or rather shuttino; the door which Providence had 
 opened, they determined, without delay, to use their 
 utmost endeavours to prevent so fatal a result. 
 
 In the Committee, too, there were some who man- 
 fully adopted and adhered to the same course. Dr. 
 Simpson, followed by Mr. Hog of NewHston, and Mr. 
 Bruce of Kennet, refused to sanction the majority's 
 repudiation of the proposed measure. Dr. Simpson 
 recordino; his dissent from the Committee's resolutions. 
 We honour him for his resolute stand, made in a 
 matter of such importance, and for his repeated though 
 unsuccessful endeavours to induce the Committee to 
 reconsider and to rescind these resolutions. His 
 " Statement in reference to the Division in the Non- 
 intrusion Committee," contains an interesting and able 
 exposition and defence of the views held by the min- 
 ority on the matter in dispute, and, along with the 
 extracts from their minutes, published by the Com- 
 mittee themselves, furnishes us with all that is neces- 
 sary to arrive at a correct opinion on the subject, and 
 
268 HAIR-SPLITTING. 
 
 to rebuke the conduct of those who would trifle with a 
 matter so momentous, and peril the existence of the 
 Church on what most unprejudiced men would consider 
 not a matter of principle, after the concessions made, 
 but a paltry metaphysical quibble, impalpable except to 
 the touch of men w4iose morbid sensitiveness had been 
 increased by over-exertion in fruitless negotiations and 
 by oft-repeated disappointments, and in whose minds, 
 from excessive contemplation of the one absorbing 
 theme, the accidental had assumed the importance of 
 the essential, and little trivialities the magnitude of 
 lofty principles. The point of difference between the 
 majority and minority of the Non-intrusion Com- 
 mittee, when brought to the test, amounted to nothing 
 more "than that residuum of objection, aversion, or 
 dislike, which remains after the cause or ground for it 
 is confessedly given up." * Nay, it was something less, 
 if possible, than even this ; for, according to the ac- 
 knowledged principles of the majority, as supporters of 
 the Veto law, even from this residuum might be 
 abstracted all " causeless prejudice," so that tlie point 
 on which the Committee w^as determined to embroil 
 the Church afresh, and peril her very existence, w^as 
 that residuum of dislike which remains after the 
 grounds for it are given up, minus all causeless pre- 
 judice, which, if it be not a metaphysical figment, 
 approaches so indefinitely near it, that the analysis of 
 even the acute schoolmen of the middle ages could, we 
 fear, scarcely detect it. 
 
 * Statement by Dr. Simpson, p. 8. 
 
MOVEMENT IN SYNOD OF GLASGOW AND AYR. 269 
 
 Such were the circumstances in which one division 
 of those afterwards denominated the "middle party" 
 felt themselves called on to take up a distinct posi- 
 tion. A section of that party, in the Synod of Glas- 
 gow and Ayr, subsequently known as the "Forty," 
 were among the first to take their stand, convinced that 
 an opportunity had presented itself of extricating the 
 Church from difficulties, which, if much longer con- 
 tinued, must lead to most ruinous consequences ; and 
 that, from whatever motives, those who had been en- 
 trusted with the manaorement of affairs were casting; 
 that opportunity from them. They had reason to 
 know that there were very many throughout the 
 Church Vv'ho entertained the same conviction, and they 
 resolved, by making their sentiments publicly known, 
 and by communicatino; with others who w^ere believed 
 to agree with them, to endeavour, if possible, to pre- 
 vent the mischief which was imminent. Perhaps their 
 first hope was that possibly they might induce the 
 majority of the Committee to reconsider, and perad- 
 venture to rescind, the strano-e resolution to wliich thev 
 had come, and to revert once more to the position 
 which they had conscientiously occupied in October. 
 But, at all events, they were resolved to wash their 
 hands of the responsibility, and to absolve themselves 
 from all share in the consequences which might flow 
 from the steps which the Committee had taken. 
 
 Men of various shades of sentiment were connected 
 with this movement. There were men of anti-patron- 
 age views, and some who would have preferred a modi- 
 
270 MOVEMENT IN SYNOD OF GLASGOW AND AYR. 
 
 fication of the Veto Act, and some who would willingly 
 have accepted the first bill of Lord Aberdeen — the 
 bond of the party being simply a conscientious con- 
 viction that the modified bill was a measure which the 
 Church could accept, though none of them perhaps 
 would have asserted that the bill was that which they 
 would have individually preferred. Many, perhaps 
 most of them, would, at the time, have preferred such a 
 measure as the majority of the Committee would have 
 chosen, had that been within their reach. But, as 
 they saw no grounds w^hatever for expecting such a 
 measure, while they could, without the slightest viola- 
 tion of their consciences, accept of the other which they 
 believed to be obtainable, they determined boldly to 
 say so, even at the risk of incurring the awful frown of 
 those who called themselves " the Church." They 
 were grieved — many of them were indignant — at the 
 conduct of men who, they believed, were trifling with 
 momentous interests — occupying themselves with the 
 amusement of splitting hairs, though the price of the 
 entertainment might be the ruin of the Church of 
 Scotland. They did not feel themselves at liberty to 
 conceal their sentiments. They could not do so. 
 Silence Avould have been consent — consent to a de- 
 claration that a measure which they held to be a safe 
 one was not safe — that a measure which they, in com- 
 mon with the Committee in October, believed they 
 could conscientiously accept, was one which they 
 could not conscientiously accept. This they could not 
 and they would not do. Perhaps it was presumption 
 
GROUND OCCUPIED BY MOVERS. 271 
 
 in them to venture to form a judgment in the matter 
 at all : or at least to give utterance to the judgment 
 when formed. Many thought so. Their spirits rose 
 in virtuous indignation at the boldness of the step. 
 What might not happen when men, professing to hold 
 the Non-intrusion principle, ventured to question the 
 infallibihty of the Non-intrusion Committee ! The 
 "Forty," it appears, did not think so. There were 
 some among them who had temporary misgivings. It 
 was a new thing for them to venture on the exercise of 
 so great a right : but then the facts of the case liad be- 
 come so notorious — the change in the views of the 
 Committee was so palpable — that the spell was broken. 
 A glance at the facts reassured even the most diffident. 
 The fascination was dissolved, the charm was over ; and 
 even those whose veneration for the rulers was the 
 greatest, took courage, and felt their judgment 
 strengthened, when they reflected, that the measure 
 which their consciences told them they could accept, 
 was the very measure which a unanimous Committee 
 declared to the Government in October would be con- 
 sidered "a great boon." 
 
 Such was the origin — such the position of that party 
 whom it has been too much the fashion to represent as 
 a weak and disreputable faction, who, having meanly 
 compromised important principles, perplexed the coun- 
 sels of the Church, and by their efforts — which some 
 charitable persons allow may have been w^ell intended — 
 precipitated matters so injuriously that extrication be- 
 came impossible. Now what they did was simply this. 
 
272 TAKE UP POSITION ABANDONED BY COMMITTEE. 
 
 " They declared that the measure in question was one 
 to whicli they could conscientiously submit ; the front of 
 their offending was this — that they ventured to profess, 
 in the month of April 1842, what the Non-intrusion Com- 
 mittee had professed in the month of October 1841." 
 
 Those who feel themselves at liberty so freely to 
 condemn that party might perhaps at least modify their 
 judgment if they would only consider that, but for the 
 circumstance of the rising of the Parliament, the occur- 
 rence of which rendered immediate legislation impossi- 
 ble, the Church question would have been finally settled, 
 with the full concurrence of the Non-intrusion Committee, 
 ON THE VERY TERMS ivhich the parti/ in question are 
 blamed for saying they could accept. Such is the fact, 
 and it is an instructive one. We need not speculate 
 on the interpretation which, in that case, would have 
 been put upon the "miserable clause." But what 
 would have become of the men of high principle, who 
 would so soon have been led to the discovery that the 
 clause was noxious, and that, on conscientious grounds, 
 it ought to have been rejected ? Would they have re- 
 pudiated the settlement, and refused submission to the 
 law, and arranged an exodus of their own without the 
 Non-intrusion Committee, leaving them in Egypt to 
 do their best with the oppressors and taskmasters, and 
 the miserable remnant Avho were so blind that they 
 could not see the tokens of their bondage, and so 
 hardened that they could not feel the galling of the 
 fetters which bound them? Or would they indeed 
 have discovered that the measure could after all be 
 
DEFENCE OF MOVEMENT. 273 
 
 admitted? or rather would they, in that case, never 
 have been led to the discovery that there was any 
 reason why it should not be admitted ? To speculate 
 on this point is needless; but the fact that there is 
 such a point to speculate upon might suggest some les- 
 sons both of humility and charity. 
 
 The party referred to cannot be justly blamed for 
 adopting the position which formed the common ground 
 among them. Individuals may have connected them- 
 selves with it who had gone so far in that direction to 
 which the leading innovators pointed, that some may 
 be ready to challenge their consistency, and to regard 
 them as having deserted a party to which they had 
 professed allegiance. But no man surely is bound to 
 put implicit faith in any leadership, however skilful — to 
 call any man master in such a matter — above all, to 
 take up and abandon positions on the alleged ground 
 of conscience, when his own conscience distinctly re- 
 fuses to concur. Nay, no man who valued the rights 
 of conscience, if he really held with the Committee in 
 October, that the measure proposed was admissible, 
 could, unless his convictions also had undergone a 
 change, declare, with the Committee in December, 
 that the measure was not admissible. There was not 
 only an opportunity afforded to withdraw from the 
 ranks, if the man chose, but, holding this conviction, 
 he was bound to do so. If he continued his adherence 
 to the party, by so doing he virtually declared that, in 
 that matter, he believed the leaders right ; whereas in 
 
 his conscience he believed them wrong. In such a 
 
 s 
 
274 DEFENCE OF MOVEMENT. 
 
 case a man of principle had no choice. The very 
 existence of the Church was in danger. Every man 
 was imperatively called on to make up his mind as to 
 whether or not the only attainable measure was such as 
 could with a clear conscience be submitted to. Those 
 who adhered to the majority of the Committee de- 
 clared that it could not. All who believed that it could 
 were bound to say so, as they valued their own convic- 
 tions, and loved the peace of Zion. To have done 
 otherwise would have been to sacrifice conscieuce to a 
 fancied consistency, and, from fear of reproach and ob- 
 loquy, to stifle the remonstrances of the monitor within. 
 It had been well for the peace of mind of some at this 
 time not to have trifled with their solemn convictions. 
 There were those who in their hearts believed that the 
 measure was such as could safely be submitted to, but, 
 not havine: moral courao^e enouMi to state their consci- 
 entious views, silently concurred in its condemnation. 
 Had the fear of man been less, and the strength of real 
 principle greater, the ranks of the middle party would 
 have been even more crowded than they were, and some 
 would now be in the enjoyment of true freedom, who, 
 alas ! are fain, we fear, to content themselves with the 
 name. 
 
 It is not, however, witli the consistency of individuals 
 that we have to do. In the progress of such a contro- 
 versy, many must necessarily be exposed to the charge 
 of inconsistency. But looking to the party and to the 
 position which they took up, we assert that the ground 
 which they occupied was the ground of high principle, 
 
AUTHORITY OF ASSEMBLY. 275 
 
 and that they were, as a party, wronged and misrepre- 
 sented by those who, looking at the isolated acts or 
 early professions of a few, ventured to brand the whole 
 as a company of renegades. We maintain that, in their 
 public movements, they acted the part of consistent and 
 Christian men. They had ceased to have confidence in 
 those who had taken the management of affairs ; and 
 they did not scruple to say so. They disagreed with 
 them ; and they said so. They refused to veer about 
 when matters of conscience were concerned. And if, 
 indeed, there was any presumption in their venturing to 
 state their conscientious views on a point in which all 
 were equally interested, in opposition to so high au- 
 thority as that of the majority of the Non-intrusion 
 Committee, the answer on their behalf is twofold : that, 
 in a matter of conscience, they had learned, as Protes- 
 tants, to call no man master ; and that they were act- 
 ing in a spirit of true obedience to an authority higher 
 than that of any committee — the authority of the pre- 
 ceeding General Assembly, which had given forth this 
 solemn resolution, " That the present diflSculties of the 
 Church of Scotland are of so serious and alarming a 
 character, that a measure fitted to put an end to the 
 collision now unhappily subsisting between the civil 
 and ecclesiastical authorities, in reference to the settle- 
 ment of ministers, ought to unite in its suppot^t all ivho 
 could conscientiously submit to its operation, if passed into 
 a lawT * 
 
 * This resolution was moved by Dr. Candlish, and adopted by a very large 
 
 majority. 
 
276 UNFOUNDED CHARGE. 
 
 It has been insinuated that the movements of this 
 party, and representations which they are supposed to 
 have made to the Government of the country, blasted 
 the hopes entertained of a more liberal and satisfactory 
 measure, by leading the Government to believe that the 
 threatened secession would prove but trifling, and that 
 therefore there was no urgent call, on that ground at 
 least, to concede such a measure as was claimed. 
 
 If the movements of the party were the means, under 
 Providence, of preventing the innovating majority from 
 obtaining their full demands, a debt of gratitude greater 
 than we supposed is due to them by the Church and 
 by the country, inasmuch as they, according to this 
 view, prevented what we do firmly believe would have 
 been the establishment of such a system of spiritual des- 
 potism, as this enlightened nation would not long have 
 tolerated. This country is not likely ever again to sub- 
 mit to ^'golden periods of the Church." But the charge, 
 we believe, is without foundation. No Government 
 would have granted, nor durst have granted, such inde- 
 pendence as was claimed. And as to a more liberal 
 Non-intrusion measure, on what reasonable or even 
 plausible grounds did the expectation of it rest ? All 
 previous negotiations on this subject had failed. There 
 was at one time some prospect of patronage being either 
 abolished or modified, but the zeal of the Non-intru- 
 sionists had destroyed that prospect. The Veto, as we 
 have seen, was introduced to uphold the system of pat- 
 ronage, and it did uphold it. For a brief period there 
 was a gleam of hope, when the then existing Govern- 
 
ALL NEG0TL4TI0NS HAD FAILED. 277 
 
 ment, having been virtually committed to the Yeto, 
 seemed inclined to leo:alise it. It was but a oleam. 
 Darkness succeeded. Another gleam gladdened our 
 longing eyes, when a correspondence was opened with 
 the Earl of Aberdeen ; but the Committee soon extin- 
 guished it. Attempt after attempt was made, and each 
 one proved a failure. Too long experience had amply 
 proved either that the negotiators were incompetent, or 
 that no Government — be it Liberal or be it Conservative 
 — would concede their demands. That was the lesson 
 which experience had plainly taught. Besides, there 
 was now no time for delay. Difficulties were hourly 
 increasing. The Church was destroying herself. The 
 sole ground of hope was this, that provided only the 
 Government could be brought to believe that, in the 
 event of the Church's demands not being fully conceded, 
 a very large secession would take place, or rather that 
 the Church herself would dissolve her connexion with 
 the State, — to prevent an evil so ruinous they would 
 surely yield. Till the last this delusion was clung to. 
 It was not admitted to be possible that any Government 
 durst incur so great a risk. In that belief the party 
 took the fatal plunge. Many did believe that to de- 
 clare their firm determination to secede would be the 
 sure and the only means of preventing the necessity of 
 seceding. Alas ! they were caught in their own snare. 
 But so completely had the delusion taken hold of the 
 minds of many — so utterly were they taken by surprise 
 when they found that even a paternal Government had 
 not interposed to prevent the suicidal act — that even 
 
278 DELUSIVE HOPES. 
 
 after they had appended their names to the deed of se- 
 paration, they could not persuade themselves that they 
 really had seceded. Nay, and not a few were so utterly 
 confounded at the issue, and so firmly persuaded that 
 the Government must give way, as to express a convic- 
 tion that they would be speedily recalled, and that the 
 frail wooden erections, which had been hurriedly got u}> 
 to accommodate seceding congregations, would outlive 
 the period of the secession, and see them all brought 
 back in triumph to the temples which others had dared 
 to occupy. 
 
 Hopes, founded on that delusion, were the only 
 hopes which, at the time referred to, the movement 
 party could cherish. If any real grounds existed, they 
 have never been declared. Like the dog in the old 
 fable, who, by snatching at the image of his prey in 
 order to secure a double portion, lost even that which 
 he might have brought in safety to the river's brink, 
 so had the Committee, by abandoning a measure which 
 had been put within their reach, been left, for aught 
 that ever has appeared, in circumstances of as utter 
 destitution as any in which they had ever been since 
 the controversy had begun, and with this untoward 
 and damafrinjx circumstance in addition, that, in the 
 eyes of the Government, and the country, and the 
 Church, they had exhibited a tendency to vacillate, 
 having now twice shifted their ground. 
 
 It was in these circumstances that this party stepped 
 in. They simply took up that position which the 
 Committee had previously examined and declared to be 
 
 J 
 
GOVERNMENT WARNED. 279 
 
 tenable ground. On that ground they stood, convinced 
 that the Government were not less anxious than the 
 Church that a safe and honourable settlement should 
 be effected. The result shewed that their convictions 
 were not unfounded. A safe and honourable settlement 
 was obtained, which left the Church in the full posses- 
 sion of all the privileges which she had ever enjoyed, 
 and the people in undisputed possession of rights of 
 which, for many years,- they had practically been de- 
 prived. 
 
 As to negotiations by the party with men in power, 
 we do not possess any information, further than this, 
 that, so far from attempting to convince the Govern- 
 ment that the threatened secession would be a triflino; 
 one, the Government were distinctly and solemnly as- 
 sured that, unless a healing measure were promptly in- 
 troduced, the secession would probably be as formidable 
 as the actual event shewed it to be. I can myself speak 
 to one instance, at least, in Avhich that warning was 
 distinctly given. It is true that on this point the 
 Government were mistaken. They did not anticipate 
 a secession of nearly such extent. But whatever was 
 the source of their misinformation, v.hatever the 
 grounds of their miscalculation, they were not without 
 warning upon the point. They were told distinctly 
 that, apart from, and in addition to the ground of high 
 principle, many had so committed themselves that, 
 without some real concession, they could not possibly 
 avoid secession. Scarcely, however, do we wonder that 
 the Government were misled. They believed that if 
 
280 LION IN TEE PATH OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 they gained the leaders, they gained the led ; and the 
 Committee's Minute of October could scarcely fail to 
 give countenance to the idea that, after all, the out- 
 goers might prove but few. 
 
 The truth, indeed, we believe, is this: that, behind 
 the Kon-intrusion question, to which exclusively the 
 proceedings just adverted to related, there was another 
 and most formidable matter, which, probably, as far at 
 least as the chiefs were concerned, would have formed 
 an impassable barrier in the way of a satisfactory settle- 
 ment. The case of the Strathbogie ministers was a "lion 
 in the way." The act of the deposition of these men, we, 
 the moment it was consummated, regarded as rendering 
 a schism in the Church, to a greater or less extent, 
 inevitable.* It was impossible that the Non-intrusion 
 Committee could shut their eyes to the fact that their 
 case must impede any attempt at arrangement ; and 
 how far the contemplation of this fact may have led to 
 that change of views to which we have adverted, it 
 would not be easy to determine. We have seen that, 
 in October, they had undeniably come down from the 
 
 * That act was indeed the passing of the Rubicon. It is, however, a 
 somewhat curious circumstance that, except when founded on acts of 
 proved immorality, deposition and even excommunication have been very 
 generally disregarded, as to spiritual effect, by those against whom these 
 sentences have been pronounced, how zealous soever they may previously 
 have been for upholding Church authority and discipline. The case of the 
 tirst seceders in 1733 is an instance. The case of the Burghers and Anti- 
 IJurgl.ers — the latter having excommunicated the former — is another. An- 
 other is the case of Dr. M'Crie and his brethren : Dr. M'Crie was, on the 
 2d September 1806, by the General Associate Synod, solemnly deposed 
 from the office of the holy ministry, and suspended from all communion 
 with the Church in sealing ordinances. The good doctor, however, treated 
 the sentence as a nullity. — Vide Li/'e, p. 116, &c. 
 
CASE OF STEATHBOGIE BRETHEEN. 281 
 
 high ground of Non-intrusion, as bj themselves ex- 
 plained. We have seen how gladly they availed them- 
 selves of the non-fulfilment of the curious stipulation 
 with regard to time, to escape from a position which, as 
 far as the one question was concerned, promised a satis- 
 factory arrangement. The cause of the change in their 
 views between October and December has never been 
 satisfactorily explained. To say that a new interpreta- 
 tion had been put by the minority of the Committee on 
 the terms in the proposed clause, is not satisfactory, 
 and should never have been stated, since it is contra- 
 dicted by the terms dictated by the majority them- 
 selves in their form of the clause submitted to the 
 Government. Of this any reader may satisfy himself 
 by referring to the clause as quoted above. 
 
 Now, we know in point of fact that the case of the 
 Strathbogie brethren was in the contemplation of the 
 Committee. It did not at first present itself as an 
 element in the negotiations with the Government, but 
 ere long it was distinctly intimated that the restoration 
 of these deposed ministers was to be regarded as a sine 
 qua norip in any settlement that might be made. More 
 than this — although a degree of obscurity attaches 
 to the transaction, which the reader will not find re- 
 moved by Dr. Buchanan, for he omits the subject — 
 it appears from Sir George Sinclair's Correspondence 
 that, in order to get rid of this formidable barrier, 
 the Church Committee had consented to secure the 
 restoration of these brethren, on what they considered 
 easy terms. The draft of a letter was prepared and 
 
282 OFFER OF KESTO RATION. 
 
 submitted, it would seem, at least to the leading mem- 
 bers of the Committee, and sent to the Strathbogie 
 ministers for their signature. And so far, it would ap- 
 pear, had this matter proceeded, that Sir George felt 
 himself warranted to make this distinct statement to 
 his Strathbogie correspondent: — "I am now able to 
 say, that if you and your brethren will agree to tran- 
 scribe and sign the enclosed letter, it will be accepted 
 by the Assembly, and lead to your restoration."* 
 
 The Church Committee, it would seem, could speak 
 for the Assembly — presuming on the convenient rela- 
 tion between the *' leaders" and the "led." But this 
 negotiation, like many former ones, altogether failed, 
 the Strathbogie brethren declining to append their 
 signatures ; and thus the impassable barrier still re- 
 mained — there was still the lion in the path. 
 
 Now, we do not say that this circumstance accele- 
 rated the retreat of the Non-intrusion Committee from 
 the position to which they had descended, and drove 
 them back to their higher ground— that, had the lion 
 which stood so ominously in the path of independence 
 been quietly removed, they might still have found 
 that they could submit to a measure " which did not 
 adequately carry out the principle of Non-intrusion ; " 
 but we do say that, independently of any movement by 
 the middle party, or by any section of them, there 
 was an object looming in the distance, which sooner 
 or later must be approached, and which, as the leaders 
 must have known, rendered wellnigh hopeless any 
 
 • Ten Years of the Church, vol. ii., p. 200. 
 
 J 
 
committee's report. 283 
 
 attempt at a satisfactory settlement in accordance with 
 the principles which they maintained. 
 
 It is a sio-nificant fact, in connexion with this sub- 
 ject, that in their report to the General Assembly, 
 the Non-intrusion Committee omit all mention of the 
 important proceedings, on their part, mentioned above. 
 They briefly advert to the appearance of Sir George 
 Sinclair on the field, but no notice whatever is taken of 
 the fact, that, in October, they had agreed to the basis 
 which he had proposed — had consented to accept the 
 bill of Lord Aberdeen, modified according to the terms 
 suggested, on the condition of its being passed during 
 that present session of Parliament ; or of the pledge or 
 promise or understanding, or whatever it amounted to, 
 with reference to the restoration of the StrathboGrie 
 brethren. On these points it was convenient or neces- 
 sary to be silent. It might not have been safe to tell 
 the Assembly how nearly a settlement had been effected, 
 and how the promising negotiations had been broken off'; 
 and although, perhaps, it might not have been diflicult, 
 if once resolved upon, to induce the Assembly to re- 
 deem the pledge, it might have been a very difficult 
 thing to pacify them for the indignity offered, if it had 
 come out that any Committee had assumed such un- 
 disguised power as to authorise Sir George Sinclair to 
 say, " If you sign the enclosed, it will be accepted by the 
 Assembly, and lead to your restoration." The leaders 
 might perhaps exercise that power, but they must not 
 shew it. To have shewn it would have been fatal. 
 Even the well-disciplined troops w^ould have revolted. 
 
284 STRATHBOGIE BRETHREN. 
 
 The restoration of the Strathbogle brethren must have 
 been gone about by them Avith all due formality, after 
 careful reasoning and solemn prayer to Almighty God 
 for His direction in a matter so momentous ; and if, 
 after all, it had come out that the matter had been 
 previously settled — the judgment anticipated — the 
 pledge given, — the mockery of such proceedings 
 would have been too apparent — the bubble of Inde- 
 pendence would have burst before their eyes, and some 
 fewer victims would have been left to grace the final 
 departure. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 " Claim of Rights " — Carefully Drawn up — Too Elaborate to be studied by 
 those to whom it was submitted, and who were to adopt it — Decision in 
 Second Auchterarder Case — -After the first, the Church could have re- 
 tired within impregnable fortress— No Invasion of Spiritual Jurisdiction 
 — Proceeds on Principles acknowledged by the Leaders — Controversy 
 narrowed to point of Pecuniary Compensation. 
 
 It is not necessary to follow the further hopeless 
 attempts of the Non-intrusion majority still to obtain 
 from the legislature a measure commensurate with 
 their wishes. Others, it is true, were now in the field, 
 whose efforts seemed much more likely to be crowned 
 with success ; and among these were not a few repre- 
 sentatives of the old popular party whose anti-patron- 
 age leanings had been thwarted, and whose once pro- 
 mising efforts had been checked by those whose 
 influence for the time was paramount in the Church. 
 But the Non-intrusionists had been accustomed to hope 
 against hope ; and although politicians of every class 
 had declared against them, yet so reasonable, to them- 
 selves at least, did their views appear, that they could 
 not abandon the conviction that, sooner or later, their 
 reasonableness must compel the assent of all. A few 
 members in both Houses of Parliament had cordially 
 embraced, and were, at all times, ready to support 
 their views; and the aid of these tried friends, on 
 whose assistance they could calculate with certainty, 
 
286 SECESSION LOOMING. 
 
 joined with the delusion so carefully fostered by many, 
 that no Government durst push matters to the ex- 
 tremity of a secession, still buoyed them up with the 
 hope of ultimate triumph. 
 
 There were those amongst them, however, who could 
 not but foresee — and, indeed, must have for some time 
 foreseen — that ultimate secession was, if not inevitable, 
 at least extremely probable. As far as Non-intrusion 
 was concerned, that issue might be avoided ; but Inde- 
 pendence, as by them maintained, was the rock which, 
 even if that point were passed, still threatened ship- 
 wreck. They had begun the contest on the Non-in- 
 trusion ground, but now it had passed over to that of 
 Spiritual Independence ; or rather, they began the con- 
 test on the ground of their own right, in virtue of their 
 independence, to carry out in their own way the prin- 
 ciple of Non-intrusion, and now that right had been 
 assailed ; and, while Non-intrusion was ready to be 
 granted, their high claims were denied.* In all their 
 negotiations this was felt to be the point of difficulty. 
 Sooner or later this was the question which came to 
 the surface. The constant stumbling-block which ever 
 
 * It would seem that from the beginning this was the true nature of the 
 contest, whatever may have been the ostensible form which it was made to 
 assume. In an able article, commendatory of Dr. Buchanan's Historj', in 
 the "North British Review," a periodical favourable to the Free Church, 
 occurs the following statement or admission : " For a while the real nature 
 of the contest tvas concealed by the use of the conventional terms, ' Intru- 
 sion ' and 'Non-intrusion.' But wlien tlie civil courts assumed the power 
 of determining the whole matter — the jurisdiction of the Church courts and 
 all — the controversy was forced to assume its true character^ as in reality 
 involving the very essence of the spiritual independence of the Church." — 
 North British Review, August 1819. 
 
CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 287 
 
 and anon presented itself, was the fear of some loop- 
 hole being left by which the civil court might possibly 
 effect an entrance. They wished a law to regulate 
 their procedure ; but one of its provisions must be, 
 that they should regulate that procedure as they 
 pleased — one of the clauses of the binding Act must 
 bear that they were not to be bound at all ; or, if 
 bound, none but themselves were to have any right to 
 enforce the obligation. 
 
 But while this conviction must have forced itself on 
 many, and to some, perhaps, was not altogether unwel- 
 come, the great mass of the Non-intrusionists still 
 clung to the hope of success. Accumulating difficul- 
 ties did not discourage them. The spirit of the party 
 rose as the fury of the tempest increased. No surren- 
 der, was now their maxim. To no compromise would 
 they listen. And when now no prospect presented 
 itself of the legislature spontaneously interfering to 
 save them from the grasp of the law which they had 
 set at nought, they determined to go directly to Par- 
 liament with a full and distinct statement of their de- 
 mands and grievances. These were embodied in the 
 celebrated document emitted by the General Assembly 
 1842, entitled, " Claim, Declaration, and Protest, by 
 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland;" 
 better known, perhaps, under the more brief appel- 
 lation of " The Claim of Eights." 
 
 This memorable paper, drawn up with much laborious 
 care, and which had been introduced in the form of an 
 " Overture to the General Assembly, for a declaration 
 
288 CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 
 
 ao-ainst the unconstitutional encroachments of the civil 
 courts," was fitted, and probably designed, to subserve 
 more than one important end. While its adoption by 
 a large majority in the Assembly might have the effect 
 of impressing Government with the conviction that 
 there was no shrinking on the part of the Church, and 
 that the threatened secession would be one of appalling 
 magnitude, it would, at the same time, tend to commit 
 more stringently the party adopting it to the views 
 and measures of their leading men. It seemed, indeed, 
 to be the natural result of a spontaneous movement on 
 the part of Presbyteries and Synods throughout the 
 country, who had showered in overtures anent " the 
 encroachments on the spiritual privileges of the Church." 
 These overtures, however, were city manufactures, 
 rather than country produce. They were prepared in 
 the metropolis by the skilful leaders ; sent down to the 
 provinces to trusty men, to be there received, dis- 
 cussed, and adopted, and, in due time, returned to their 
 native city, in the shape of earnest overtures or peti- 
 tions for a declaration and remonstrance on the part of 
 the Church.* To meet these anticipated demands, the 
 " Claim of Rights " had been already elaborated, and, 
 when proposed to the Assembly, it was carried by a 
 large majority. 
 
 Our examination of principles in the preceding 
 portion of this work renders unnecessary any formal 
 scrutiny of the document here. It is sufficient to re- 
 mark that, though embodying doctrines very different 
 
 * Ten Years of the Church, vol. ii., p. 266. 
 
ELABOKATE PRODUCTION. 289 
 
 from those of our early Church, it nevertheless was 
 drawn up with such consummate skill as to induce some 
 to concur in its adoption, who were by no means pre- 
 pared to acquiesce in the extreme measures which, it 
 soon appeared, the framers of it contemplated. That 
 they did so was matter of regret, at the time, to many. 
 It was an inconsiderate step. The document to which 
 they appended their signatures was far too elaborate to 
 be mastered in the time afforded for the examination of 
 it. Its innumerable references and quotations would 
 have required, for their verification or refutation, an 
 amount of careful study, together with access to 
 authorities, which it would have been not only dii3i- 
 cult, but impossible, at the time, to command. A 
 single glance at the references themselves will convince 
 any one that, to call on an assembly of men, however 
 well informed, to append their signatures to a docu- 
 ment at once so comprehensive and so minute, was just 
 to call upon them to exercise a strong act of faith in 
 the accomplished lawyer who was known to be the 
 author of the work.* And in the hurry of the mo- 
 ment they had no time to reflect upon the fact, that, on 
 one of the most important points Avhich that solemn 
 
 * The document which was drawn up by Mr. Dunlop contains between 
 seventy and eighty references to the Standards of our Church, to Acts of 
 Parliament, and decisions in the civil courts. It is upon these references 
 that it professes to rest its claims. How many of those who, by expressing 
 their concurrence, pledged themselves to the accuracy of the solemn deed, 
 could have had the opportunity of verifying these references, or studying 
 the quotations in their several connexions, or examining the not less for- 
 midable array of opposing testimonies, so as to come to a deliberate judg- 
 ment on the accuracy of the deed, and the justice of the demands which it 
 embodied ? 
 
 T 
 
290 ITS FATE FORESHADOWED. 
 
 document contained, the views entertained by its 
 author were directly the opposite of those which he 
 had maintained when not under the influence of con- 
 troversial excitement — views which he had given to the 
 world in 1833, in sundry passages, some of which we 
 have already laid before the reader. 
 
 It is not unlikely that among the complex motives 
 which induced the majority to take the decided step 
 of passing and presenting the " Claim of Rights," one 
 element was furnished by the circumstance, that the 
 moderate party — threatened as they were with measures 
 which, if consistently followed out, would have resulted 
 in their wholesale deposition — had indicated a deter- 
 mination to appeal to the legislature, in order that it 
 might be authoritatively determined whether they or 
 their opponents were, of right, to be considered as the 
 Established Church of Scotland. But whatever were 
 the motives which chiefly prompted to the step, certain 
 it is that the step itself rendered such a settlement as 
 would prevent a secession more hopeless than ever ; and 
 not a few regarded it as the first great preliminary 
 taken by the leaders with a view to that result.* 
 
 The fate of the Claim of Rights might, without diflS- 
 culty, have been anticipated. It was indicated by the 
 Queen's Commissioner, the Marquis of Bute, who, when 
 he consented to transmit the ^' Address to her Majesty," 
 desired it to be " distinctly understood that, in doing 
 so, he expressed no approbation ; " and by Sir James 
 Graham, who, in his reply to his Lordship, immediately 
 
 * See Note A. 
 
AUCHTERARDER DECISION. 291 
 
 afterwards communicated to the Moderator of the Gene- 
 ral Assembly, expressed himself as follows: ^'If the 
 presentation of these documents to the Queen implied, 
 in the least degree, the adoption of their contents, I 
 should not hesitate to declare, that a sense of duty 
 would restrain me from laying them before her Ma- 
 jesty; but as the language used is respectful, and as the 
 enclosure purports to be a statement of grievances from 
 the supreme ecclesiastical authority in Scotland, I am 
 unwilling to intercept their transmission to the throne. 
 . . . This act is not to be regarded as any admission 
 whatever of the Claim of Rights, or of the grievances 
 which are alleged." 
 
 Shortly after the period now referred to, an event oc 
 curred which tended much to hasten on the issue of the 
 long protracted conflict. That event w^as the judgment 
 by the House of Lords in the second Auchterarder 
 case. The judgment in the first Auchterarder case had 
 declared it to be the duty of the Presbytery to take on 
 trials the presentee of the patron, Lord Kinnoul. This 
 it had found the Presbytery bound and astricted to do. 
 Than this the judgment went no farther. It did not 
 find that the Presbytery were bound to admit or to or- 
 dain. They were bound to take on trials. Had the 
 Church, after this decision, directed the Presbytery to 
 proceed to that statutory and ministerial duty, the con- 
 flict would have been brought to an end. Now, the 
 discharge of that duty did not imply that she was to 
 violate her principle of Non-intrusion. It was only 
 found that the Veto of the male heads of families could 
 
292 AUCHTEKARDER DECISION. 
 
 not absolve the Presbytery from the duty of trying a 
 presentee. Plad the Presbytery proceeded to the dis- 
 charge of that duty, there was another stage at which 
 the element of the people's opposition might, if con- 
 tinued, have come in and been considered by the court, 
 and the Presbytery might have found that, though qua- 
 lified for the ministry in general, he was not suitable 
 for that particular parish. The statute, as determined 
 by the court of last resort, bound the Presbytery to 
 judge ; but no statute^ loJiich has ever yet been quoted^ 
 gives to any civil court the right to review upon their merits 
 the judgments to luhich a Presbytery may come. The 
 Act 1567 gives the examination and admission of mini- 
 sters to the Church courts exclusively. They are, in- 
 deed, bound to examine. They may be comj^elled to 
 do so. The statute requires it of them ; but, acting judi- 
 cially in this sacred duty, no civil court either possesses, 
 or has ever claimed, any right of interference with 
 them ; and no statute exists on which any such claim 
 could be founded. 
 
 Neither did that decision imply an invasion of her 
 jurisdiction. To the Church courts belongs the "exa- 
 mination and admission " of* ministers. That right the 
 decision did not impugn, but only implied that it Avas 
 the duty of these courts to exercise that right. Not a 
 step beyond this did the judgment of the Peers extend. 
 
 To the rulers and advisers of the Church, however, it 
 did not seem meet to direct the Presbytery thus to act. 
 Buoyed up by the delusion that the only consequence 
 of refusing to discharge what was, clearly and admitted 
 
DECISIOJs^ IN THE FIRST CASE. 293 
 
 to be, a statutory duty, would be the forfeiture of the 
 fruits of that particular benefice, they determined to 
 resist. Nay, they flattered themselves and their fol- 
 lowers with the hope that the solemn judgment of the 
 supreme court would turn out to be an idle and im- 
 practicable decision. They taught that the worst result 
 could only be the withholding of the stipend of Auch- 
 terarder, and they were willing that the patron should 
 appropriate it, if he could, or that the presentee should 
 claim it, if by any means his title to it could be esta- 
 blished. But all the while it was known not only that 
 no such title could be established by the presentee, un- 
 less he were inducted ; but that the patron could not 
 appropriate it, since an Act, long subsequent to that 
 which gave the patron a right to the fruits of the bene- 
 fice until the presentee was settled, had directed va- 
 cant stipends to another quarter — viz., to the widows' 
 fund. If, in these circumstances, the doctrine of the 
 Church's leaders had been correct, the judgment of the 
 House of Lords would, indeed, have been a mockery, 
 amountino^ to nothino: more than the enunciation of an 
 idle theorem. 
 
 Could the leaders, indeed, have persuaded themselves 
 of this ? Did they believe that the one bond of con- 
 nexion between the State and the Church was the 
 temporal provision of its ministers, and that the former 
 had fulfilled its duty in the matter, as prescribed in the 
 Word of God, and often declared by the Church her- 
 self, by an arrangement which allowed the piecemeal 
 dis-establishment of the Church? Did they flatter 
 
294 SECOND FLOWED NECESSARILY FROM THE FIRST. 
 
 themselves that, after the solemn decision that it was 
 the statutory duty of the Presbytery to take the pre- 
 sentee on trials, no means could be adopted to give 
 effect to that decision ? and that no valid recourse was 
 left to those whose civil interests were affected by their 
 refusal to discharge the duty which the statute pre- 
 scribed ? Could they anticipate any other result than 
 that which was embodied in the judgment given in the 
 second Aucterarder case? It is difficult to perceive 
 how they could do so; and yet, judging from their 
 speeches after the decision was pronounced, it appears 
 as if that decision had taken them by surprise. 
 
 The judgment in the second case was just a corollary 
 from that given in the first. The first found it to be 
 the duty of the Presbytery to take the presentee on 
 trials ; and when the Presbytery refused to do so, both 
 patron and presentee instituted proceedings to obtain 
 compensation for the injury by them sustained. The 
 Court of Session found that they were entitled to com- 
 pensation in damages against the Presbytery ; and, the 
 case being appealed, the judgment of the Court of 
 Session was unanimously affirmed by the House of 
 Lords. The Presbytery had refused to discharge a 
 plain and imperative duty — a duty arising necessarily 
 out of the compact between the Church and the State, 
 and having, by that refusal, caused others to sustain 
 injury, they were found liable in damages. 
 
 The Presbytery were called on to act ministerially, 
 as the law directed. Had they done so after the first 
 decision, and proceeded to their judicial function, then. 
 
ONE STEP WOULD HAVE SAVED. 295 
 
 even though they had been in error, no action could 
 have been maintained against them. They, in that 
 case, had conscientiously discharged their duty. They 
 had acted ministerially, as required by statute ; and, by 
 that act, they Avould have brought the case within their 
 own proper province — the spiritual or ecclesiastical. 
 By that act, they would have advanced the case icithin 
 the protection of the Act 1567, ivhich gives ^'examination 
 and admission^^ exclusively to the Church courts. Once 
 within that province, they had been safe. The courts 
 of law, instead of interfering, would have been bound 
 to protect them. 
 
 They chose, however, to take their stand at a stage 
 clearly beyond that province. They refused to discharge 
 a ministerial duty. They refused to take the step 
 which would have brought them within their own well- 
 defined bounds ; and, having hazarded so dangerous a 
 contest, they sustained defeat. Having entered the 
 civil province by refusing obedience to a civil statute, 
 they incurred those severe penalties by which the law 
 must, without respect of persons, ever vindicate its 
 own authority^ And it should never be forgotten that 
 not only was the Church the first aggressor, but that 
 she pertinaciously refused to retire one step, although 
 that single step would have put her behind those con- 
 stitutional defences, which her foes would in vain have 
 attempted to assail. She chose to fight the battle of 
 her independence on ground not merely debatable, but 
 clearly without her own domain, by refusing to dis- 
 charge a duty, not spiritual, but one distinctly enjoined 
 
296 DECISION SEEMS TO TAKE LEADEES BY SUEPRISE. 
 
 by civil statute. She was defeated — she was driven 
 from her false position. But that defeat did not touch 
 her separate jurisdiction. Her true spiritual independ- 
 ence remains intact. Within her own province her 
 rights are still inviolate, both as conferred by her great 
 Head, and as recognised and protected by civil statute. 
 She is not only the Free Church of Scotlnnd, but she 
 has her freedom defended by those very laws, which 
 the recklessness of her temporary leadership had at- 
 tempted so fiercely to assail. 
 
 Such was the famous decision which tended so much 
 to hasten on the great catastrophe. As if it had taken 
 the leaders altogether by surprise, they were prompt to 
 denounce it as an unheard-of invasion of the spiritual 
 province. It amounted to what we have stated, and to 
 no more ; but yet, by uprooting the favourite theory 
 of " the forfeiture of the fruits of the benefice," it de- 
 stroyed the fondly cherished views which had been 
 adopted respecting the basis of relationship between 
 the Church and State. This it did by establishing 
 what in any other case would have been considered a 
 self-evident truth — viz., that, " when any one has an 
 important duty to perform, he is bound to discharge it ; 
 and if he refuse to do so, to the hurt and injury of an- 
 other, that party has ground for an action against him." 
 The subject was forthwith taken up in the Presbytery 
 of Edinburgh. A view, as we think, most unwarranted, 
 was taken of the judgment by Dr. Candlish, and there- 
 after re-echoed throughout the Church. He declared 
 it to be a decision " to which the Church could in no 
 
PRESCKIBES NO RULE. 297 
 
 shape render obedience — a decision finding a Presby- 
 tery guilty of an offence in civil law, liable in damages 
 for rejecting a presentee, on the dissent of a major part 
 of the congregation. The former judgment in the 
 Auchterarder case was one to which they could render 
 obedience ; but this was a decision which, in no sense 
 whatever, they could obey. The amount of the judg- 
 ment was this : That the civil courts had jurisdiction 
 to lay down for the Church this particular rule, for 
 their authoritative guidance in the discharge of their 
 spiritual functions of trying, ordaining, and admitting 
 candidates for the ministry ; that the dissent of a con- 
 gregation was no sufficient reason for setting aside a 
 presentee ; and that those courts had jurisdiction to 
 compel Presbyteries to induct presentees to the cure of 
 souls, notwithstanding of such dissent." 
 
 It is difficult to understand how obedience could be 
 rendered to the first, but withheld from the second 
 Auchterarder decision, seeing that the one did simply 
 enforce one and the same duty, which the other had 
 declared. The decision laid down no rule for the 
 Church "for their authoritative guidance in the dis- 
 charge of their spiritual functions of trying, ordaining, 
 and admitting." It declared that the Church's duty 
 was to try ; but how to try, it did not attempt to de- 
 termine — it interfered not with the point in any shape. 
 Neither did it declare that the civil courts had "juris- 
 diction to compel Presbyteries to induct." It declared 
 that they had jurisdiction to compel Presbyteries to 
 try or judge — or rather, to grant redress to those whose 
 
298 MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 civil interests were injured by the refusal — but it left 
 their freedom in trying or judging inviolate. It drove 
 the Church courts from the province which they had 
 attempted to invade, but it left their own province of 
 trying, ordaining, and admitting, in all respects intact. 
 Such, however, was the view which Dr. Candlish 
 took of the import and bearing of this decision — a view 
 concurred in by the other leaders, and received by the 
 great mass of their supporters. In their opinion, this 
 notable judgment formed the very crisis in the conflict. 
 It was needful, perhaps, to give great prominence to 
 the blow, real or supposed, struck by it at the Non-in- 
 trusion principle — to represent it as determining that 
 '^ the dissent of a cono-reoration was no sufficient reason 
 for setting aside a presentee." But that, if determined 
 at all, had been determined by the first decision, to 
 which, according to Dr. Candlish, " they could render 
 obedience; because the decision might have been in- 
 tended simply for the regulation of proceedings with 
 respect to the temporalities." It was not in this that 
 the offence consisted, but in the awarding of damages 
 to the parties whose civil interests had been injured. 
 It was the restraint on the fancied independence of the 
 Church, imposed in the material shape of damages, 
 which was the true grievance. Conceal it how skil- 
 fully soever they might, it was this material, civil, 
 pecuniary matter which had brought on the crisis of 
 affairs. It had been declared by the first Auchterarder 
 decision, that it was the imperative duty of a Presby- 
 tery to take a presentee on trials ; and to this, accord- 
 
MISAPPREHENDED. 299 
 
 iog to Dr. Candlish, they could render obedience, 
 because the decision was supposed to have respect only 
 to the temporalities of the parish ; but to the very 
 same decision, as far as the declared duty was con- 
 cerned, they could in no shape render obedience, when 
 that decision was found to have respect to other tem- 
 poralities — the damages, viz., to the parties suffering 
 injury. 
 
 Dr. Buchanan speaks very strongly upon the point. 
 " On the footing," says he, " not merely of Scripture, 
 but of constitutional law, the Church held herself en- 
 titled to treat this decision as itself illeo;al — as a usur- 
 pation upon her ratified rights and liberties, of which 
 she was entitled to complain to the legislature, and to 
 which it would be the solemn duty of the legislature, 
 under the obligations of the Revolution Settlement 
 and of the Treaty of Union, to put an end." * That is 
 to say, the Church held herself entitled to interpret 
 constitutional law and Acts of Parliament, and that so 
 fully, as to be entitled, on the ground of her own judg- 
 ment, to treat as illegal the decision of the highest 
 tribunal, to which it authoritatively belongs to inter- 
 pret all civil statutes of the realm ; and that, moreover, 
 as we have seen, in a matter referring simply to tem- 
 poralities — viz., to the question of damages. 
 
 It is irksome to dwell on such a subject. It was 
 one, however, of immense importance in the contest, 
 being in reality the very point on which the Secession 
 of 1843 was made to turn. For this reason, and be- 
 
 * Vol. ii., p. 532. 
 
300 ITS SOLE IMPORT. 
 
 cause the subject was so misrepresented at the time, 
 we crave the reader's indulgence, while we advert, in a 
 sentence or two, to the inaccuracies and inconsistencies 
 by which the leaders contrived, out of this judgment of 
 the House of Lords, to fashion the fatal instrument by 
 which they drove so many from the Church of Scotland. 
 
 The reader is requested to recall the terms of the 
 two Auchterarder decisions, and to keep carefully in 
 mind to what they each amounted. By the first it was 
 determined that the Presbytery acted illegally in refus- 
 ing to take a presentee on trials. By the second it was 
 determined that, since by this illegal refusal they injured 
 the civil rights of another, that illegal refusal furnished 
 the ground of damages in law. In the first of these 
 decisions the Church declared her acquiescence, in so 
 far as it might ajjfect any civil rights. Now, Ave ask, in 
 what did this decision go beyond the first, except in so 
 far as civil rights were affected? The reply is, in 
 nothing ; and, in that reply, we have the refutation of 
 all the indignant sophisms to which this supposed in- 
 fringement of the Church's liberties gave rise. The 
 first judgment, in which, as to all civil eflPects, the 
 Church acquiesced, declared that an injury had been 
 inflicted ; the second simply followed out the first as 
 to its civil effects, in awarding damages, as pecuniary 
 redress for the injury inflicted. 
 
 Again and again had the Church, through her 
 accredited agents, repeated such statements as the fol- 
 lowing : " The appellants admit that if Presbyteries 
 violate any civil rights, there may be civil consequences 
 
ADMISSIONS. 301 
 
 arising out of such usurpation. They admit, that in 
 all civil matters the civil powers may decide, to the effect 
 of determining luhat the civil consequences of any eccle- 
 siastical judgment ought to he^ * Did the second 
 Auchterarder decision go one step beyond what the 
 Church here admitted to be the legitimate province of 
 the civil powers? When they determined that the 
 illegal rejection of the presentee was a civil wrong, did 
 they do more than " determine the civil consequences 
 of an ecclesiastical judgment?" When they awarded 
 damages for that wrong, did they do more than "de- 
 termine the civil consequences of an ecclesiastical judg- 
 ment?"! 
 
 * Additional Statement for Presbytery of Auchterarder. Dr. Cunningham, 
 in his speech delivered in the Preshyteiy of Edinburgh, in the Marnoch 
 case, adverting to the methods by which a civil court might enforce sta- 
 tutory civil rights illegally violated by ecclesiastical procediire, says : 
 " Another provision may be found in an action for damages. That may 
 be the case, for anything I know. It may not be legal or constitutional — I 
 do not think it is — but still it is abstractly competent on general prin- 
 ciples. The Court may sustain such an action — they may inflict damages 
 — that may be abstractly competent, because it is not assuming jurisdic- 
 tion in ecclesiastical matters, but appeals merely to men's pockets." 
 
 f Nothing can be clearer than that, in this case, the Court refrained 
 from intruding on the ecclesiastical province, and confined itself simply to 
 civil consequences. It made no pretence to the "power of the keys." It 
 claimed no power to try the presentee. It did not even issue any order to 
 the Presbytery to try him. It only found that damages were due to the 
 party injured by their refusal to try him. The civil court permitted the 
 Church courts to follow out their view, taking the civil consequences Avhich 
 the course they chose entailed. " Did the House of Lords say to the Pres- 
 bytery, ' We will of our own authority compel you to take this man on 
 trials, and in the event of your recusancy we will visit you with the 
 heaviest pains and penalties, such as imprisonment and fine ? ' No, they 
 said no such thing ; for there is an essential difference between afne, which 
 is a public criminal forfeitiu-e for alleged misconduct, and damages, which 
 is a purely civil award to a private party, given in compensation for the 
 infliction of civil wrong." — Morren's Church Politics, No. III. 
 
302 CIVIL EFFECTS. 
 
 Assuming even the high ground which the leaders 
 found it necessary to occupy when they claimed for th^ 
 Church courts co-ordinate jurisdiction with the civil, 
 it could never be shewn that, by this decision, the civil 
 power had overstepped its constitutional limits- They 
 claimed the right of interpreting Acts of Parliament, 
 but only as to their spiritual bearings. They still al- 
 lowed to the civil courts the right of interpreting civil 
 statutes as to their civil bearings. " The Church," 
 said they, " will follow out her views of the law, within 
 her own province, as to its spiritual consequences ; and 
 will leave to the civil courts to follow out their views 
 of it, within their province, as to its civil effects." Can 
 any amount of ingenuity indicate the point where, in 
 this case, the civil courts did more than follow out their 
 own views, within their province, as to civil effects ? 
 The Church, indeed, in following out her own views of 
 the law within her ow^n province, may have encountered 
 sundry inconveniences arising out of the civil courts 
 following out their views in their province, but that 
 can never be shewn to amount to a confounding of the 
 jurisdictions, and could never entitle the former to treat 
 " the decisions of the latter as in themselves illeiral. " * 
 
 Such was the famous Auchterarder decision, which 
 hurried on the crisis in the Church's affairs, and brou2:ht 
 the leaders to a position in which they declared it im- 
 possible that they could any longer carry on the busi- 
 ness of the Church. As Dr. Buchanan expresses it — 
 
 * The reader may see this whole subject treated with great clearness, and 
 at considerable length, in Morren's " Church Politics," No. III. 
 
GROUND NARROWED TO ONE POINT. 303 
 
 " It was now practically impossible for the Church to 
 go on." 
 
 That decision had been long anticipated by many. 
 How the leaders should have calculated on anything 
 different is indeed astonishing. 
 
 That the ground became so narrowed is cause of 
 gratitude to the great Head of the Church, who, in 
 His overruling providence, had so directed matters, 
 that men, upon a little reflection, might now distinctly 
 see that the grounds upon which the schism was being 
 formed were civil grounds — that it was simply because 
 damages were found competent to an injured party, 
 when a Presbytery refused to discharge a clearly defined 
 statutory duty — not to induct, not to ordain, not to 
 find qualified, but simply to try whether a presentee 
 possessed the necessary qualifications. By taking this 
 step, the Presbytery, as we have already seen, would 
 have brought the case within the spiritual province. 
 But this, to the injury of the presentee, they refused to 
 do. Here the leaders took their stand. They refused 
 to take the step. They did so to the prejudice and 
 hurt of another. They were found liable in damages 
 not for an act of disobedience to a higher authority, hut 
 for an injury inflicted on the man to whose rights they 
 refused to listen. This was the real ground of the 
 schism. It was narrowed to this point — the point of 
 pecuniary damages — which is "not assuming jurisdic- 
 tion in ecclesiastical matters, but merely appeals to men's 
 pockets." It was not till this point was reached that 
 Dr. Candlish and Dr. Buchanan exclaimed, " it is now 
 
304 THE ONE POINT — PECUNIARY DAMAGES. 
 
 practically impossible for the Church to go on." The 
 Church had declared that she could go on, though the 
 civil power had decided to the effect of " determining 
 what the civil consequences of any ecclesiastiGal judg- 
 ment ought to be ; " yet, because of these same civil 
 consequences, the leaders proclaimed, " It is impossible 
 for the Church to go on." They wished themselves to 
 select the kind of civil consequences which the civil 
 power should determine. Grant this, and the Church 
 can go on. The Church can go on though the fruits of 
 the benefice be severed from the cure, and the parish be 
 dis-established as far as the temporalities are concerned. 
 That implies no interference with the Church's inde- 
 pendence. But let any other civil consequence be 
 attempted, and the spiritual rights of the Church are 
 undermined. Perhaps it was true that, in these cir- 
 cumstances, the Church could not go on ; but, if it was 
 so, this only shewed the falsity of the favourite theory 
 of civil and spiritual courts following each their own 
 course to its legitimate effects. The temporalities of 
 an unattached cure had as much of the spiritual element 
 about them as those portions of the temporalities of 
 other cures which might fall to be appropriated in the 
 shape of damages. Both, according to the ffivourite 
 theory, were alike liable to become legitimate subjects 
 for the civil courts to operate on. And we cannot, 
 therefore, regard the cry, "It is impossible for the 
 Church to go on," in any other light than as the cry 
 of parties who had found themselves checkmated in a 
 game of their own choosing — who had found themselves 
 
CHURCH CANNOT " GO ON." 305 
 
 landed in an impracticable fix, by the fair working out 
 of a theory of their own propounding. 
 
 Now, this, we think, was the very point on which the 
 schism turned. This was the grievance which drove 
 our brethren from the Church of Scotland. Other and 
 many grievances were no doubt enumerated. They were 
 conglomerated into one black cloud so as to conceal, even 
 from their own minds, the true cause of their secession. 
 But this was the centre and master grievance. This 
 rendered it impossible to " go on." This had taught 
 them that they did not possess such independence as 
 implied a power to act just according to their own 
 views — to do, or to refuse to do, a statutory duty, just 
 as they might feel inclined — to prescribe to the civil 
 courts what civil consequences they should determine 
 as legally and by statute competent. It was merely an 
 accidental circumstance that their refusal to try the quali- 
 fications of a presentee was founded on the fact of his 
 being rejected hy the people, for they took their stand on 
 the principle that no civil power had authority to en- 
 join the discharge of any spiritual duty, which they 
 held the taking of a presentee on trials to be ; and 
 therefore they would have claimed the right of refusal 
 just as readily on any other ground, or without being 
 called on to state any ground whatever. It was not on 
 the ground of Non-intrusion that they ultimately 
 seceded, but mainly on the ground that they had been 
 denied such independence as would permit them to act 
 in what they should consider spiritual matters, as they 
 
 might see meet — a right inconsistent with the Non- 
 
 u 
 
30 G PAINFUL ALTERNATIVE. 
 
 intrusion which they sought, inasmuch as, if fully con- 
 ceded, it ^Y0uld have permitted and authorised them, 
 in any case, to judge or not to judge, to intrude or not 
 to intrude, as they should deem proper. 
 
 Accordingly, no sooner was this decision made known, 
 than the resolution was taken by the leaders to abandon 
 altogether the contest in which they had so long been 
 engaged, and to adopt another and a different course. 
 Their contest with the executive was over. They had 
 been defeated. " The Church could not go on." One 
 of three things must happen. Either they must yield, 
 acknowledging themselves to have been in error; or 
 the legislature must interfere and accommodate the 
 statute and constitution to their views ; or they must 
 "set their house in order," and prepare to abandon the 
 Church. The first they were determined not to do. 
 Measures, therefore, must be adopted with a view to 
 the other alternatives. To assume the attitude of mak- 
 ing preparations for the latter, offered the most likely, 
 perhaps the only, hope of obtaining the former ; for it 
 still was confidently urged and believed by many, per- 
 haps by almost all, even among the leaders, that no 
 Government durst risk a secession so alarming as they 
 were prepared to threaten, and that they had only to 
 shew a bold front and no blenching, to secure complete 
 success. Agitation, accordingly, was had recourse to. 
 Public meetings were held throughout the whole land. 
 No means were spared to enlighten the people on the 
 controversy — that is, to indoctrinate them into the 
 views of the movement party; and representations were 
 
NOTE TO CHAPTER XII. 307 
 
 given forth of the doctrines entertained by their op- 
 ponents, which we are bonnd in charity to believe their 
 authors, as Christian men, w^ould not now defend. 
 
 NOTE TO CHAPTER XII. 
 Note A. 
 
 In connexion with this point — the now increasing hopelessness 
 of a satisfactory settlement of the great dispute — we cannot with- 
 hold the following judicious remarks of Dr. Bryce, with reference 
 to the period just preceding that at which we have now arrived : — 
 "Now that the memorials and manifestoes of both parties in the 
 Church were before the world, the question could not fail to occur to 
 every candid and impartial person — May we not in all this have 
 a very notable example how nearly men may, in reality, be to- 
 gether in mind and sentiment, while acting towards each other as 
 if wide as the poles assunder ? And how easily might contro- 
 versies of this kind be settled, if anything like candour and tem- 
 perate consideration were given to them ! By the very conces- 
 sions again and again made by the Non-intrusionists diu-ing those 
 negotiations, and by the simple act of seeking the aid of the legis- 
 lature at all in fixing the mode or terms of taking presentees on 
 trials for collation to the cm*e and benefice to which they might 
 be nominated, they admitted that this step or stage in the forma- 
 tion of the pastoral relationship was a civil matter ; and so far 
 they agreed with the Moderates. In the matter of admission to 
 the cure of souls, and the qualifications entitling to this admis- 
 sion, the Moderates never allowed the Court of Session to have 
 any dh-ect jurisdiction. In this step and stage of the process, 
 they held the formation of the pastoral relationship to be so far 
 an ecclesiastical matter, that the statute had removed it from the 
 control of the civil authority ; and herein they agreed with the 
 Non-intrusionists. In that stage of a settlement with which the 
 Veto Law of 1834 had to do, the Moderates contended that the 
 Church courts acted merely ministerially, being bound by the 
 civil statute to do a certain duty under certain given circum- 
 stances — that duty being, to take on trials the presentee of the 
 
308 NOTE TO CHAPTER XII. 
 
 legal patron ; and that the question — Whether they should dis- 
 charge this diitv or not ? — the law of the land did not permit the 
 Church to hand over to the people, as the Veto Act had done. 
 All this was, in fact, conceded by the Non-intrusionists, after 
 judgment had been given in the House of Lords against the 
 Church. The Church, in the Auchterarder case, by expressing 
 her liability to pay the penalty of the broken law, acknowledged 
 that she had committed the statutory wrong. In the subsequent 
 stage of settlement — that of examination and admission — the 
 Moderates let in the people to object on any ground they might 
 see fit ; and then they assigned to the Church courts a judicial 
 duty, with the discharge of which the civil were prohibited, by 
 express statute, from interfering." — Vol. ii., pp. 234, 235. 
 
 These statements are worthy of serious consideration, and are 
 fitted to suggest ver}^ solemn reflections on the part of some. We 
 do in our heart believe, that had the Church-question been left 
 for settlement to half-a-dozen of intelligent laymen — say to six 
 pious, well-educated, and intelligent business men — a satisfactory 
 arrangement would have been come to in a week. 
 
 We have one remark, however, to make on the concluding 
 sentence of the paragraph. In theory, the " Moderates " did let 
 in the people at the stage adverted to, to object on any ground 
 they might see fit, but in practice it had come to be otherwise. 
 Doubts, moreover, had come to be entertained as to the people's 
 rights in the matter. The present law has removed these doubts, 
 and practically restored these rights. The people are now let in, 
 though at a diff"erent and prior stage, to object on any ground 
 they may see fit, and then to the Church courts belongs that 
 judicial duty with the discharge of which the civil are prohibited, 
 by express statute, from interfering. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 The Convocation— Its Purpose — Its Purpose as indicated in Circular — Ul- 
 timate Unanimity — Difference of Opinion underneath — Took Erroneous 
 Views of Decisions in CIatI Courts — Memorial to Government — Address 
 to People of Scotland. 
 
 Among the means ddopted at this eventful crisis was 
 the celebrated Convocation. Great importance has been 
 justly attached to this extraordinary meeting. Arrange- 
 ments were made for it immediately after the Auchter- 
 arder decision had been pronounced. Its plan was 
 formed, and its details arranged and executed with con- 
 summate skill. It was admirably fitted to secure two 
 great ends — the one, it was hoped, tending to ensure 
 the other. It was designed to pledge the congregated 
 ministers to inevitable secession, in the event of the 
 legislature refusing to yield ; and, at the same time, to 
 induce, or rather to coerce, the legislature into yield- 
 ing by the formidable numbers of the pledged and the 
 solemnity of their inviolable engagement. Among the 
 leaders there were those w^ho were already pledged be- 
 yond recall. Secede they must. Remain in the Church 
 they could not, though they would ; and some of them, 
 moreover, are belied if now they had any real wish to do 
 so. Good men though they were, they were not beyond 
 the influence of " the last infirmity of noble minds," nor 
 insensible to the glory of being the founders of a new 
 Church of Scotland. To remain, unless on such terms 
 
310 PURPOSE OP CONVOCATION. 
 
 as should imply a triumph over both the executive and 
 the legislature, would have dishonoured them in the 
 eyes of multitudes. They had begun to excite the 
 masses, and right onward they must go ; or, as one of 
 them to myself expressed it, " they had kindled a fire 
 which they could neither extinguish nor control." 
 Right onward they must go, for to remain implied, 
 that if they put any value on their own principles or 
 consistency, they must proceed to the wholesale deposi- 
 tion of their opponents within the Church.* 
 
 To all such it was matter of vital importance that 
 the number should be great, and the pledges, if pos- 
 sible, irrevocable, of those who were to cast in their lot 
 with them. If the numbers were not great, the move- 
 ment, with whatever issue, would be a failure. If the 
 pledges were not distinct, it might equally prove a 
 failure. Amon^y them there were men of the hiorhest 
 Christian principle, who had fairly made up their minds 
 
 * Says my old and dear friend, Dr. Horatius Bonar, in his tract entitled 
 " Can we remain in the Church ? " published shortly after the Convocation, 
 and containing a brief statement of its proceedings — "The rebellion against 
 the Church's authority from within, backed by the whole might of the State 
 without, renders it impossible to proceed. If we attempt to do so, we must 
 immediately proceed to depose more than one liundred ministers, and tlien 
 after that probably as many more, and after tliat as many more again, till 
 all our opponents were thus treated." The tender mercies even of the good 
 are sometimes cruelty ; but short of this, we admit, they could not consis- 
 tently have stopped. Now, could such acts have been permitted ? Would 
 they have been tolerated in any free country ? Certainly not. When, not 
 many years ago, the majority in the General Assembly of the United States 
 summarily deposed the minority, the law interfered and declared the act 
 illegal and incompetent. " After lengthened pleadings, tlie civil court found 
 that the acts exscinding these synods, and all their constitutent parts, were 
 contrary to the eternal principles of justice, to the law of the land, and to 
 the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, &c." 
 
rURPOSE OF CONVOCATION. 311 
 
 to secede, unless their full demands should be conceded. 
 But of these, many were firmly persuaded that, provided 
 only the legislature could be perfectly convinced of 
 their resolute determination, they would at once make 
 those fuU concessions which alone could prevent that 
 terrible calamity. 
 
 Such, it would appear, were the motives which, to 
 some extent at least, animated the movers in this 
 strange enterprise. Those who were anxious to se- 
 cede, or who knew that secession was now inevitable, 
 were desirous to have with them a band, strong in 
 numbers, and leagued together by the firmest bonds. 
 Those who were anxious to remain, yet felt that they 
 could not without ample concessions on the part of the 
 legislature, were equally desirous of numbers and com- 
 mittal, from the belief, that to persuade the legislature 
 that secession was determined on, was the only means 
 by which secession could be avoided. Both had one 
 great object in view — the securing of numbers, and the 
 exhibition of stern determination. To a great extent 
 they succeeded. But it is a fact well known, and 
 capable, if need be, of ample proof, on the testimony 
 of many witnesses, that one great and successful argu- 
 ment employed for inducing men to pledge themselves, 
 was just the assurance, that the necessity of redeeming 
 the pledge was not likely ever to occur — that the more 
 explicitly it was given, the more surely it would 
 never be required ; in short, " that provided a bold 
 front were shewn, no Government durst refuse their 
 claims." We are far from insinuating that these were 
 
312 AVOWED PURPOSE. 
 
 the views of all. There were many who had counted 
 the cost to the utmost, and, for what they believed to 
 be a matter of vital importance, were ready to suffer 
 the loss of all things. But the argument was used — 
 the argument was pressed — the argument was success- 
 ful with many ; and with them every arrangement 
 made with the view of secession, every new link that 
 was added to the chains which ultimately bound 
 them, became an additional security against the need 
 of secession, and an additional token of ultimate 
 triumph. 
 
 The Convocation was convened by a circular, signed 
 by thirty-two of " the most venerable ministers of the 
 Church." That circular bears, that the occasion which 
 had rendered such a meeting necessary was " the late 
 decision of the House of Lords, in the case of Auchter- 
 arder" — a decision which, it asserts, had " practically 
 placed the Church of Scotland in a state of subordina- 
 tion to the civil courts." It declares the object of the 
 Convocation to be "that their common mind on this 
 vitally momentous question may be distinctly ascer- 
 tained, and such an expression of it given forth, as, by the 
 blessing of God, may have the effect of removing that 
 aggression of the civil poicer, which, if not removed, 
 must speedily terminate in the degradation and over- 
 throw of our National Establishment." The circular 
 does hint at the possibility of a secession when it in- 
 timates that, in the event of their appeal to the legis- 
 lature being disregarded, " there yet remains a higher 
 appeal from the constitution, thus disregarded and vio- 
 
CIKCULAR. 313 
 
 lated, to the conscience of the Church." But obviously 
 this is pointed at as a distant object — a matter for 
 future consideration, in the event of the appeal to the 
 legislature proving vain. The declared purpose of the 
 Convocation, as divulged in the circular, was to '^ give 
 forth such an expression of the common mind as might 
 have the effect of removing the aggression of the civil 
 power,^^ — that is, of rendering a secession unnecessary. 
 If, therefore, men were, at the Convocation, pledged to 
 leave the National Church, one of two conclusions 
 necessarily follows : either that they were induced at 
 that meeting to do in this most momentous affair, 
 what, from the circular, they could not have been led 
 to anticipate as a matter on which they were to be 
 called on to decide ; or that, as already stated, the 
 solemn pledge was given in the belief that it never 
 would require to be redeemed — given just to prevent 
 its own realisation, and as " such an expression of the 
 common mind as misjht have the effect of removing: 
 that aggression of the civil power." 
 
 Both of these conclusions, we believe, contain the 
 truth. Many who had left their peaceful country 
 homes, not only without any resolution to bind them- 
 selves by any pledge, but with a determination to resist 
 any attempt to induce them so to do, returned to these 
 homes in fetters which they could not break, seduced 
 into that bondage by the delusion that they had taken a 
 step, the boldness of which must move the legislature 
 to succumb — that, by proclaiming their readiness to 
 depart, their departure would be prevented. And 
 
314 NO AUTHENTIC RECORD OF 
 
 both of these conclusions suo^orest reflections which 
 we repress, and wish for ever to banish from our 
 minds. 
 
 Of the proceedings of the Convocation, which con- 
 vened on Thursday, 17th November 1842, no authentic 
 record, so far as we know, has yet been given to the 
 world. It was a secret conclave, called without autho- 
 rity, and pointing, it would seem, to a result not anti- 
 cipated by the great body of which it was composed. 
 Its deliberations were conducted in private, its meetings 
 being held in a small place of worship in an obscure 
 street in Edinburgh, which. Dr. Buchanan says, '^ was 
 chosen solely because its limited size fitted it better 
 than a larger church for such a free and conversational 
 conference as it was the great object of those assembled 
 to hold with one another." * 
 
 The public being quite excluded from its meetings, 
 and "no authentic record preserved or taken" of its 
 business, we are indebted for any little information 
 which can be gathered respecting its private proceed- 
 ings, to accounts given either by the members them- 
 selves, who might not, perhaps, feel themselves called 
 upon to divulge what was " strictly private and confi- 
 dential," or by those who, induced by the circular, 
 attended, for a time, the meetings, but, perceiving the 
 ultimate tendency of the Convention, and the result to 
 which the proceedings were beginning to point, with- 
 drew from the scene, and escaped the snare. 
 
 The accounts furnished by those different parties 
 
 • Vol. ii., p. 639. 
 
UNANIMITY. 315 
 
 certainly do not in all respects agree as to the scenes 
 
 presented at the secret meetings of the Convocation. 
 
 Two accounts by Convocationists are at present before 
 
 us — the one by Dr. Buchanan, and the other by Dr. 
 
 Horatius Bonar. Both are extremely brief, as far as 
 
 narrative is concerned, dismissing the whole subject in 
 
 a very few sentences. According to both, a wonderful 
 
 unanimity of sentiment prevailed. Neither, however, 
 
 enlightens us much as to the means by which that 
 
 unanimity was secured. Both would leave upon our 
 
 minds the impression that it was mainly, if not entirely, 
 
 the result of prayer. While both admit that there 
 
 were " differences of opinion," neither tells us about the 
 
 parties into which, it is said, the assembly seemed 
 
 ready to divide, and the measures adopted to unite 
 
 them* — the assurance so confidently given forth that 
 
 unanimity would save them, and secure or compel the 
 
 concession of the Government. Perhaps they did not 
 
 know of the private measures alleged to have been 
 
 resorted to for removing doubts which it would not 
 
 have been convenient openly to discuss ; or the means 
 
 adopted, in some instances, for securing w^averers, or 
 
 men threatening to be dissentients, by adroitly calling 
 
 on them to undertake some prominent duty in the 
 
 meeting. Perhaps they forgot the public examples 
 
 made of some who, it is asserted, w^ere ignominously 
 
 saluted by the brethren for silence or recusancy. 
 
 * At the critical moment, it is said, the venerated Chalmers was intro- 
 duced, and his influence and eloquence were brought to bear upon the dis- 
 cordant elements. 
 
316 GREAT DIFFERENCES NOTWITHSTANDING. 
 
 That a marvellous unanimity did ultimately pre- 
 vail, can be denied by none. But, apart from the 
 means adopted to secure it, under that unanimity there 
 still lurked great difference of opinion, even upon the 
 points embodied in the resolutions adopted by the Con- 
 vocation. There still were those who held such senti- 
 ments as the following, expressed by Dr. Willis, in the 
 Presbytery of Glasgow, long after the date of the Con- 
 vocation : — " He believed that the Headship of Christ 
 had, besides its direct relation to the Church, also a 
 comprehensive reference to the State, and especially to 
 a professing Christian Government. It was not enough 
 remembered that such a Government, being under law 
 to God, and having, as well as the Church, the means 
 of governing itself by the Scriptures as the only rule of 
 faith, could never be expected to acknowledge a jiis 
 divinum in a Church under its protection, and especi- 
 ally in statuted compact with itself, to legislate even 
 within what is accounted the ecclesiastical domain, 
 without responsibiliy to the State. . . . He knew 
 how delicate a matter it was to interfere, how great 
 was the danger of violent encroachment ; but he could 
 not but admit the force of Sir Robert Peel's assertion, 
 of the inexpediency and the danger of, on the one 
 hand, conceding an absolutely unlimited jurisdiction ; 
 or, peremptorily and in detail, assigning the lines of 
 demarcation on the other He did be- 
 lieve that statutes limiting ecclesiastical legislation 
 were as necessary to the liberty of a Protestant 
 realm, as statutes of ratification or protection were 
 
SOUND VIEWS OF PROFESSOR WILLIS. 317 
 
 essential to the just freedom and efficiency of the 
 Church." * 
 
 Such were the sound and clearly expressed senti- 
 ments of Dr. Willis, in April 1843 — sentiments in 
 accordance with those held and expressed by the 
 fathers of our Church — sentiments concurred in by 
 not a few who, nevertheless, had been induced, by 
 whatever means, and however inconsistently, to append 
 their signatures to the Convocation resolutions, and 
 thus to present to the Government and to the country 
 the aspect of unanimity, while, underneath, there really 
 was a conflict of principles too sacred and too important 
 to have been thus concealed, even for the purpose of 
 securing the expected triumph. 
 
 That such principles were held by many of them we 
 know and assert — that they are still maintained by 
 them, though for a time, and in the excitement of the 
 conflict, overborne, we cannot but believe; and this 
 knowledge and belief lead us still to cherish the hope, 
 that when the Voluntaryism of some of their brethren 
 shall have a little more developed itself — for that their 
 principles are the germ of which essential Voluntaryism 
 is only the consistent development, we are fully per- 
 suaded — they will begin to question the propriety of 
 the step which they have taken, and set themselves, 
 in spite of temporary obloquy, to devise the means of 
 their return to the Church of Scotland. 
 
 Whatever may have been the reason. Dr. Bryce — 
 
 * Speech of Dr. Willis in Presbytery of Glasgow, in April 1843, as re- 
 ported in the " Scottish Guardian." See also Note A. 
 
318 ACCOUNT BY DR. BRYCE. 
 
 though by no means lengthy upon the subject — enters 
 more at large into the proceedings of the Convocation 
 than does Dr. Buchanan. The following paragraph by 
 the former is worthy of note : — " The first series of re- 
 solutions is said to have been moved in the Convocation 
 by the Rev. Dr. Robert Buchanan. On their promul- 
 gation, it is understood that a number of members ex- 
 claimed against their adoption, as going beyond the 
 purpose for which the Convocation had been held — that 
 of merely considering the steps that ought to be taken ; 
 and as inevitably leading to the most practical conse- 
 quences. When the meeting became somew^hat warm 
 in the discussion of the point thus raised, a member was 
 ready to move, that a reverend brother should offer up 
 prayer, and invoke aid and light from on high. In this 
 manner the tumult was quelled for a time ; and, it is 
 said. Dr. Buchanan took the opportunity of at length 
 assuring the doubting brethren, that there was no de- 
 sign to lead them to any practical acts by the resolutions 
 proposed ; and that they conveyed no pledge, if agreed 
 to, that such acts would be demanded from them. In 
 this view of the first series of resolutions. Dr. Candlish, 
 who sat by his reverend friend when reading them, is 
 said so far to have concurred, as to oflPer nothing in op- 
 position to what Dr. Buchanan had stated ; and the 
 first series was subscribed by all present. Two days 
 afterwards, the second series of resolutions, pledging 
 the subscribers directly to secede from the Establish- 
 ment if their demands were not conceded by the legis- 
 lature, was brought forward, when a new and greater 
 
ACCOUNT BY DR. BRYCE. 319 
 
 Storm arose — those who had objected to the first now 
 maintaining that they had been deceived. The same 
 means as formerly employed were resorted to of allay- 
 ing the tempest. It was then contended by Dr. Cand- 
 lish, that it was too late to object to the second series of 
 resolutions, as those who had signed the former had 
 necessarily incurred the obligation of subscribing the 
 latter, and could not, in good faith or honour, recede. 
 Several members who did not take this view of the 
 matter refused to adhibit their siOTatures to the addi- 
 tional resolutions ; and a few who had signed the first 
 series took the opportunity of leaving the meeting, and, 
 in the end, remained in the Establishment. Such is the 
 account of the proceedings in this secret conclave, which 
 we have received from witnesses in w^hose credibility we 
 place the utmost reliance." * 
 
 Another circumstance which must have tended to the 
 unanimity of the Convocationists w^as the strangely 
 perverted views taken of the position of the Church and 
 of the import and bearing of certain decisions by the 
 civil courts. That marvellous misrepresentations had 
 been made by some of the less eminent members of the 
 Non-intrusion phalanx, under the influence of excite- 
 ment at public meetings, we were well aware; but that, 
 as a body, the Convocationists, met in solemn conclave, 
 could have been the victims of such delusions, nothing 
 but unimpeachable testimony could induce us to be- 
 lieve. Such, however, seems really to have been the 
 case. Taking the views which, it seems, they did, of 
 
 * Vol. ii., pp. 314, 315. 
 
320 ONE CAUSE OF UNANIMITY. 
 
 the import of the decisions of the civil courts, it was 
 impossible that they could remain in connexion with 
 the Church. We know of none now within its pale 
 who would have done so. The chief wonder is that 
 they could consent to maintain the connexion even for 
 a day. Our authority is one eminently competent — 
 the testimony of one whom, in our hearts, we believe 
 incapable of wilful misrepresentation, be the inducement 
 what it might. In a tract professedly containing "a 
 summary of the reasonings on which the resolutions of 
 the Convocation were founded," Dr. Bonar of Kelso 
 makes statements to the following effect, Avhich he tells 
 us were the sentiments or reasonings of the Convoca- 
 tion : " The late decision of the House of Lords, as I 
 have already pointed out, has brought us into a state ot 
 most unprecedented difficulty." No one will question the 
 truth of that statement. But Dr. Bonar proceeds with 
 the following catalogue of grievances, in a passage of 
 w^hich every separate statement is a statement of what, 
 we firmly believe, has no foundation in reality : and hav- 
 ing finished the passage, he adds, " Such the Convoca- 
 tion considered to be the true position of the Church at 
 present." " Under it " (that decision), says Dr. Bonar, 
 " our Church would be in absolute bondage, with scarce 
 a semblance of liberty remaining, either for ministers or 
 people. An iron yoke has been wreathed around our 
 necks, and iron fetters clasped firmly on our limbs. 
 The State has declared itself our master, without a 
 check or limit on the servitude, save its own good plea- 
 sure. Our spiritual jurisdiction has been denied and 
 
STRANGE VIEW OF IMPORT OF CIVIL DECISIONS. 321 
 
 subverted, and our most solemn spiritual functions, exer- 
 cised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, declared to 
 be merely statutory duties, which the courts could com- 
 pel us to discharge under the heaviest penalties of law. 
 Instead of being Christ's freemen, we were declared to 
 be man's bond-slaves, not at liberty to obey a single 
 law of Christ without the permission of an earthly 
 judge ! Thus it is denied that the Church of Christ 
 has any laws of its own, any government given by 
 Christ. It is denied that either ministers or people 
 
 have any spiritual rights, <S;c. &c. &c 
 
 This is now the declared constitution of the Church 
 of Scotland Such the Convocation con- 
 sidered to be the true position of the Church at pre- 
 sent." * 
 
 If, under the excitement of the time, such reasonings 
 were listened to, and such statements received, as bear- 
 ing even a remote resemblance to the truth, we may 
 cease to wonder at the unanimity which prevailed. But 
 how such conclusions could be arrived at it is difficult 
 even to guess. How the conviction could be reached 
 that " such was now the constitution of the Church 
 of Scotland," it is not easy to comprehend. Surely, 
 for the time, our brethren were under the influence of 
 some potent spell. How else can we account for the 
 mastering delusion of which so many, and such men, 
 had become the victims ? Ah ! surely, had time been 
 
 * Can we remain in the Church ? — A Brief Statement of the Proceedings 
 of the Convocation, with a Summary of the Eeasonings on which their Re- 
 solutions were founded. By the Rev. Horatius Bonar, p. 5. 
 
 X 
 
322 PRECUESOR OF THE FINAL MOVE. 
 
 afforded for calm reflection in their quiet homes, that 
 spell had been dissolved, and the pledge which gave it 
 permanency never had been given. 
 
 With this conviction, we cannot, without deep 
 feelinor, read the followino- sentences, in which the 
 author of the ^' Ten Years' Conflict " eloquently con- 
 cludes his notice of the Convocation : — " The last act 
 of this eventful drama was now at hand. When the 
 curtain closed on the Convocation, it had become 
 evident to thinking men that the next time it was 
 raised it would reveal a still more striking scene. Al- 
 ready, behind the screen of that temporary obscurity 
 into which the actors retired when they disappeared 
 from Roxburgh Church and w^ithdrew into the privacy 
 of their own parishes and homes, there might be heard 
 the busy preparation and the hurrying tread of those 
 whose next movement was destined to consummate the 
 Disruption of the Church of Scotland." Yes ! the last 
 act of the drama was at hand ; and, behind that screen, 
 might these and other sounds be heard, and these and 
 other scenes be witnessed, giving pre-indications of a 
 great Secession from the Church of Scotland. 
 
 It is not necessary, neither wall our space permit us, 
 to enter upon an examination of the two series of re- 
 solutions agreed to by members of the Convocation. 
 The light reflected by the preceding examination of 
 principles will enable any reader to judge of them for 
 himself. The first of the two series was concurred in 
 by 423 ministers, the second by 354. 
 
 Neither is it necessary to examine at great length 
 
MEMORIAL TO GOVERNMENT. 323 
 
 either the " Memorial to Government " or the " Address 
 to the People of Scotland." 
 
 In the former of these documents, drawn up as it un- 
 doubtedly is with great skill and with much care, the 
 Convocation, though at the best an unconstitutional 
 convention, summoned without authority and called 
 into temporary existence only by a pressing emergency, 
 takes upon itself to speak in the name and with the 
 authority of the Church — an act, we humbly think, 
 though of men, many of Avhom w^e love and venerate, 
 not only of vast assumption, but at least bordering 
 upon, if not actually implying, the guilt of schism. 
 Even in this mii^ht be detected the " buddino: of the 
 little horn ; " and it teaches us to wonder less when we 
 afterwards find the same parties undisguisedly claiming 
 the title of the Church of Scotland. 
 
 The Memorial, however, w^as temperately expressed. 
 It contains a distinct avowal of the claims of the Con- 
 vocationists. It repudiates altogether the idea that the 
 Church can come under any civil obligation in relation 
 to her spiritual acts, or that, having done so, she can be 
 held bound to fulfil it. It admits that in the Acts re- 
 lating to the appointment of ministers, " the provision 
 is expressed in terms w^hich, if directed against any 
 private party or civil corporation, would imquestionahly 
 have imported a complete civil obligation to the perform.- 
 ance of the specified act^^ and yet it is considered to 
 be impossible " to construe this provision of the Act as 
 importing a civil obligation, when applied to the Church 
 in relation to the appointment and ordination of her 
 
324 UNREASONABLE CLAIMS. 
 
 ministers ; *' although almost in the same sentence it 
 further admits that this same provision seems in the 
 Act " to be expressed in the form of a conditioriy under 
 which the legislature establishes the Church and confers 
 her endowments." * 
 
 The memorialists not only declare that no mere mea- 
 sure of Non-intrusion, however liberal, will satisfy them, 
 but that, in the matter of the induction of ministers, 
 no law will be satisfactory which will not permit them to 
 act illegally, if they choose. Their claim, we do think, 
 amounts to nothing short of this. They would not be 
 satisfied with an Act providing that "the judgment of 
 the Presbytery shall be final, without appeal to, or 
 review by, any civil court." Such is the provision in 
 the Schoolmasters Act. f In matters touching its 
 
 * Memorial, p. 9. 
 
 f There is, however, an obvious distinction between ca'^es falling under 
 the operation of the Schoolmasters Act, and cases of a purely ecclesiastical 
 kind. '1 hose of the former class are brought within the jurisdiction of the 
 Presbytery solely by the Act which both confers and limits the powers of the 
 Presbytery in such cases. They do not come under the class of cases pro- 
 perly ecclesiastical. In dealing with them the power of the Presbytery is 
 derived entirely from the Act; and there being, in such cases, no appeal to 
 any higher ecclesiastical court, there could be no redress in the event of 
 injustice being perpetrated by a departure from the statute, unless by appeal 
 to the law's interpreters. The case is altogether different with respect to 
 causes ecclesiastical. Church courts have their OAvn appellate jurisdiction, 
 and if injury be sustained by any one in an inferior court, the way is open 
 for redress — terminating, however, in the supreme ecclesiastical court. 
 Its judgment is final. No civil court can overturn its decision or review 
 its judgment upon the merits. Questions, indeed, may be erroneously de- 
 cided by the supreme Church court — as they may be by any court — but 
 should this happen, it does not belong to any civil court to rectify the evil. 
 "We cannot look into the objections," said Lord Ivory, in the Frazerburgh 
 case in 1851 ; " if these questions were ill-decided, that is one of the incon- 
 veniences of having two separate tribunals., each iridependent and stipreme in 
 its own province." 
 
UNREASONABLE CLAIMS. 325 
 
 provisions, it makes the decision of the Presbytery final, 
 without review or reversal by any court. Provided 
 the Presbytery, in any case, act within and according 
 to the provisions of the statute, no court can touch 
 their proceedings or their judgment. If they go be- 
 yond, or refuse to act according to, the statute, their 
 judgment may be overturned. But no such provision as 
 this, however ample and however distinct, would satisfy 
 the memorialists. They say so. They must have liberty 
 to go beyond the statute, or to act contrary to the 
 statute, without let or hindrance, if they see cause. 
 If they violate the statute, let the State withdraw the 
 fruits of the benefice. More than this it must in no 
 case do. The Church may try or not try, judge or not 
 judge, reject or receive, act according to law or in the 
 face of law, consult the flock or disregard the flock, 
 " according to her own sense of duty alone." * " No 
 measure which merely authorises or suffers the Church 
 to give effect to her Non-intrusion principle, according 
 to some particular method, will restore her freedom in 
 the exercise of this the most vital function of her spiri- 
 tual government." She must have freedom to do as she 
 pleases, to act according to her own sense of duty alone. 
 " The whole matters themselves in which the Church 
 exercises her proper authority, must, by the statute, be 
 expressly and effectually recognised as spiritual, so as to 
 leave the Church to be guided, in disposing of them, by 
 her own sense of duty alone, according to the Word of 
 God and her fundamental principles founded thereon." 
 
 * Memorial, pp. 15-17. 
 
326 ADDRESS TO PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 The " Address to the People of Scotland," which was 
 circulated in thousands over the whole kingdom, con- 
 tained a popular exposition of the views and principles 
 of the Convocationists, and was one of the most effective 
 instruments employed for awakening the sympathy and 
 securing the attachment of the people. 
 
 We do not wonder at the effect produced. The 
 spectacle of so many devoted men assuming the atti- 
 tude which our brethren had done, and determining, 
 for conscience sake, to abandon their position, and 
 sacrifice their worldly interests, could not fail to arrest 
 the attention of all to whom the spectacle was pre- 
 sented ; and the exposition of such a detail of astound- 
 incT pfrievances as this Address contained, could not fail, 
 if the representations were received as correct, of 
 arousing the indignation of all who valued those privi- 
 leo-es in defence of which their fathers had shed their 
 blood. Had we been able to believe that the fluctuating 
 decisions of fluctuating majorities of the office-bearers 
 of the Church were to be held as in any case so deter- 
 mining the mind and will of Christ, that to dispute or 
 to oppose these decisions was to oppose the Lord Jesus, 
 we durst not have submitted to any judgment by which 
 such a decision was impugned. Had we believed that 
 the matter in dispute between the ecclesiastical and the 
 civil courts was in principle the same as that on which 
 our fathers took their stand when they refused to admit 
 the supremacy in things ecclesiastical of a monarch who 
 was determined to substitute his own will for law, or 
 as that for which they suffered in the days of persccu- 
 
ADDEESS TO PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND. 327 
 
 tion under the Covenant, we could not have dechned 
 the call which summoned us to rally around the stan- 
 dard now displayed. That the Convocationists believed 
 it to be so, we cannot doubt — but that it was not 
 really so, we can as little doubt.* We need not here 
 advert to this subject. We have done so already. We 
 have already declared our solemn conviction, that, of the 
 grievances alleged, many were unfounded, many exag- 
 gerated, and that the people were called on to support 
 a system which, if fully developed in its legitimate con- 
 sequences, might, under the name of freedom, have 
 totally subverted liberty. 
 
 * " In withdrawing from the Church of Scotland, and in erecting them- 
 selves into another, denominated ' the Free Church,' they have deviated 
 as far from the example, as in other respects from the principles, of the Re- 
 formation. They point, it is true, with an air of triumph, to the non-con- 
 formity of three hundred Presbyterian ministers, who were turned out of 
 their charges on this account, in the year 1662. . . . Between the pro- 
 cedure in that olden time, and the procedure in our day, when the leaders 
 conducted their seceding brethren to Canonmills, there is a dire and repul- 
 sive contrast, but not an attractive or justifying parallel. In the days of 
 the Reformation, our Presbyterian forefathers were driven from their position 
 at the period referred to : whereas the Non-intrusion party cast aside the 
 privileges and encouragements of our Establishment ; because, on the one 
 hand, they would cling to patronage with great tenacity ; while, on the other 
 hand, the civil authorities woulil not submit to the power which the}' had 
 assumed, of 'limiting,' 'modifying,' and 'reducing' its exercise •sv'ithin 
 an undefined and unknown ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The notion that they 
 who now constitute the Free Church persevered in putting forth their 
 powers during ten years, to eflfect the absolute independence of the Church 
 of Scotland, is a phantasy which has fascinated themselves ; and others it 
 has deluded to an extent so great, that, on the verity of this supposition, 
 they and their friends boast of enjoying a ' European fame.' Magna est Veri- 
 tas, et pravalebit.'''' — WilsorCs Claims of the Free Church Examined, pp. 245-46. 
 
328 NOTE TO CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 NOTE TO CHAPTER XIII. 
 Note A. 
 
 Dr. Willis has all along held, and manfully stated, these sound 
 sentiments on this important subject. Though he ultimately 
 joined the party who seceded, he did not scruple to repudiate the 
 doctrines of the Convocationists. He was too well versed in the 
 old theology of Scotland to become, on this vital question, a dis- 
 ciple of the modern school. He was one of the few who left the 
 Church not on the Independence, but on the Non-intrusion ques- 
 tion, under, what a little patience might have shewn him to be, 
 an unfounded apprehension. Dr. Willis attended the Convoca- 
 tion, but had the honesty and the courage to refuse his adherence 
 to the resolutions, as by that body agreed to. In a conversation 
 with the author of this work, almost immediately after Dr. Willis's 
 return from that celebrated Convention, he stated his views with- 
 out reserve. They were substantially those which the author 
 himself entertained — substantially those to which Dr. Willis gave 
 expression in his speech, from which we have made some quota- 
 tions in the text. There can be no breach of confidence in pub- 
 lishing the following letter, sent by him to the author, shortly 
 after the interview above alluded to : — 
 
 " Glasgow, lO^A December 1842. 
 " My Dear Sir, — I read the pamphlets which I found when 
 I came home. I trust to your candour for a fair representation 
 of my reasons for not, as yet, signing the resolutions. The 
 Church, I hold, is practically right — /. <?., I consider her to be 
 actu^llly ill-used, in the interpretation put upon the compact ; 
 but I hold her to be theoretically wrong in asserting — as at least 
 many do — that the civil power has simply the power of giving or 
 withholding the temporalities. I think tlie State theoretically right, 
 in claiming to interpret the tenns of the compact, and in keeping 
 the Church to statute ; nor do I think it correct to say that the 
 civil courts must in every case be limited, at the utmost, to the se- 
 parating of the benefice and cure. Of course, I understand it to be 
 admitted, that the State has the right, as the Cimrch also has, of 
 retiring from the alliance, while to neither ought to be allowed 
 
NOTE TO CHAPTER XIII. 329 
 
 the right, without consent of the other, of violating the compact, 
 while it exists, without consent of the other party. I am not 
 prepared to say that the civil courts exceed their power (or, at all 
 events, that it is in principle wrong that they should have such 
 power), in coercing ecclesiastical judicatories, when found acting 
 against the law or compact ; though, as I said to you, I think 
 they ought to be slow in using this coercive power, and should, 
 when the interests and rights of the spiritual kingdom are so in- 
 timately concerned, afford every opportunity for remonstrance 
 and explanation, as between Church and State. 
 
 " An unqualified claim, however, of spiritual sovereignty, as 
 beyond all reach of the civil power, is essentially Popish, and is 
 as inconsistent with civil liberty as Erastian domination is with 
 ecclesiastical. If it comes to separation, I will likely adhere to 
 the brethren who go out ; and I should not care to sign the reso- 
 lutions to that effect, if allowed to state my own specific gi'ounds, 
 as well as those I hold in common with the rest. I could not re- 
 main in an Establishment which would require me to intrude 
 ministers against the will of the flocks. — With much respect, I 
 remain, dear Sir, yours very truly, 
 
 (Signed) " M. Willis." 
 
 "P. 5. — I would apply the principle of the above observations 
 to a Church unestablished as well as established. Civil liberty 
 requires — it is the very means of preventing persecution — that 
 the civil guardians of the whole community should know what 
 they protect as well as what they positively sanction ; and not 
 only may they exercise the right to keep the Church to its com- 
 pact with itself, where that exists, but to see justice, in so far as 
 regards civil rights, in the keeping of the compacts to which it is 
 not a party." 
 
 Such were Professor Willis's statements in 1842 and in 1843, 
 and such, we doubt not, are his sentiments still ; and such, we 
 cannot doubt, are the sentiments, now that the excitement has 
 subsided, of many reflecting men in the " Free Church." Yet, 
 how different from, how inconsistent with the ruling principles, 
 and how subversive of the claims, of that Church ! Dr. Willis 
 was not the only man holding these sentiments, who, notwith- 
 standing, joined the Secession. We could point to not a few. 
 We wondered at their conduct at the time — we wonder at it still. 
 
330 NOTE TO CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Many will probably recollect the sentiments expressed by Dr. 
 Burns, late of Paisley, in a speech delivered at the Synod, while 
 the controversy was at its height. " I do not want more power 
 for the Church. We have too much power already. What I 
 want is, more power for the people." The presence of these 
 men in the " Free Church " may possibly exercise a salutary in- 
 fluence in restraining the tendency to further deviations from the 
 doctrines of the Church of Scotland, and towards that Volun- 
 taryism to which the modern school very distinctly points. It is 
 unfortunate, however, that leading men, holding such views in 
 the "Free Church," should be called to labour in distant colonies. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Answer of Government to Claim of Rights— Subject patiently Discussed in 
 both Houses of Parliament — The Crown, the Lords, and the Commons, 
 declare the Claim to be imreasonable, and inconsistent with Civil 
 Liberty — Chapel Act — Stewarton Case. 
 
 No reply having as yet been given to the Claim of 
 Rights, agreed to and transmitted by the Assembly 
 1842, the Commission in the following November re- 
 turned to the subject, and forwarded another memorial, 
 remindino^ the Government that neither the Claim, nor 
 the Address on the subject of Patronage, had yet been 
 replied to. 
 
 On the 4th of January 1843 an official answ^er was 
 returned, in a letter addressed to the Moderator by 
 Sir James Graham, her Majesty's Principal Secretary 
 of State. That reply was given in unambiguous terms. 
 Though everything like disrespect towards the General 
 Assembly was disclaimed, the Claim was pronounced 
 to be " unreasonable," and the intimation was given, 
 that the Government " could not advise her Majesty 
 to acquiesce in these demands." From the elaborate 
 nature of the reply, it was obvious that the Government 
 had given their most earnest and careful attention to 
 the subject. The claims of the Church, they said, 
 could not be conceded without the surrender of civil 
 liberty, and the sacrifice of personal rights. 
 
 It is scarcely possible, indeed, to suppose that the 
 
332 REPLY TO CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 
 
 Government could be otherwise than most anxious, as 
 far as in them lay, to prevent that secession, the cer- 
 tainty and extent of which had been brought so promi- 
 nently before them by the resolutions and memorials of 
 the late Convocation. Had the demands been such as, 
 in the opinion of the Government, could, consistently 
 with the public weal, be yielded, the concession would un- 
 doubtedly have been made. The Government, however, 
 felt compelled to refuse them. They did not deny, but 
 on the contrary admitted, the independent jurisdiction 
 of the Church wdthin her own province; but when 
 questions arose as to how far a matter was civil or spi- 
 ritual, these, they said, were questions of law ; and, 
 being questions of law, must be decided by the courts 
 of law. They could not admit that the General 
 Assembly w^as entitled, by the law or constitution, to 
 decide what were the boundaries of civil and ecclesias- 
 tical jurisdiction; in other words, what were the limits 
 of its own powers. The assumption of such a right led 
 directly to despotic power. 
 
 Such was the reply of the Crown with reference to 
 the great point insisted on in the Claim of Rights. 
 That reply was communicated to a special meeting of 
 the Commission of the Assembly, held on the 31st of 
 January. The Commission came to the conclusion 
 that, as usual, the nature of their claims had been mis- 
 understood ; and that " the long array of statutes on 
 which the Church rested her claim of spiritual jurisdic- 
 tion, seemed to have escaped the notice of her Majesty's 
 Government." 
 
ALLEGED THAT CLAIMS MISUNDERSTOOD. 333 
 
 As to the statutes on which the Church founded her 
 claim of spiritual jurisdiction, there was no ground for 
 supposing that they had been overlooked; for that 
 jurisdiction, instead of being denied, had been admitted 
 in the Government's reply. The misapprehension of 
 the nature of the Church's claim, which has been 
 described as an " offensive and injurious mistake," 
 was supposed to consist in the notion that the Church 
 claimed to be the sole judge of what is civil and what 
 is spiritual. Now, whether this offensive mistake was 
 committed or not, it is certain that the Church did 
 claim to be judge of what, according to statute, was to 
 be considered spiritual — that is, of interpreting civil 
 statutes defining the jurisdictions. Whether she claimed 
 to be sole judge of this is practically of little moment. 
 She claimed — at least the claim was made for her — to 
 be an authoritative judge in the matter. And, if she 
 claimed to be authoritative judge of what was, accord- 
 ing to statute, spiritual, the claim just amounted to 
 that of being authoritative judge of what was civil. 
 The one claim included the other. They could not be 
 separated. It was like determining the boundary line 
 of two conterminous estates or fields. If it be alleged 
 that it belono-ed as much to the Church as to the State 
 to judge in the matter, the reply is, that it belonged to 
 neither, but to the civil courts appointed to interpret 
 statute, and, in so doing, to act as authoritative umpires 
 in cases of dispute.* 
 
 * If the jurisdictions are to be defined by civil statute, the sole judges 
 must be the civil courts. The idea of two authoritative interpretations, 
 
334 APPEAL TO LEGISLATURE. 
 
 The Claim of Rights having been thus rejected by 
 her Majesty's Government, one only course now re- 
 mained open to the Convocationists and their adher- 
 ents, as their last effort to prevent their secession from 
 the Church — viz., to appeal, by petition, to the legis- 
 lature, for redress and protection. A Committee was 
 accordingly appointed by the Commission to prepare 
 petitions to both Houses of Parliament. On the 10th 
 of February the petition to the House of Commons 
 was presented by the Right Honourable Fox Maule ; 
 and, on the 7th of March, the subject was by him 
 brought before the House, in a speech characterised at 
 once by ability and candour. On both sides the sub- 
 ject was ably and patiently discussed, in a debate which 
 occupied two days. 
 
 No one who has studied that debate can fail to be 
 impressed by the temperate and dispassionate spirit 
 manifested on either side, contrasting, as it does, so 
 strikingly with some kindred discussions -which had 
 
 opposed to each other, is absurd. It is absurd in theory, and the Auchter- 
 arder case shewed it to be absurd in practice. No impartial party will sanc- 
 tion the claim, in any shape, of the Church courts authoritatively inter- 
 preting civil statutes. The following is the opinion of one whose impartiality 
 cannot be questioned : — " It may be that the civil courts have pushed their 
 authority to the utmost limits of constitutional law, and in some instances 
 even gone beyond it; but, though strongly denied by some, we think it 
 clear as noonday, that these courts, and these alone, are the legitimate and 
 constitutional interpreters of the civil statute-book. It matters not that 
 the statutes in question relate to ecclesiastical affairs — that does not consti- 
 tute the ecclesiastical court the proper interpreter of their provisions. They 
 are civil laws, enacted by the legislature of the realm, and the civil courts 
 are, therefore, their legitimate expounders. The ecclesiastical court is com- 
 petent to interpret and apply ecclesiastical law only." — The Revolution Set- 
 tlement of the Church of Scotland. By Kev. John Graham, Wishawtowu, 
 p. 4. 
 
SUBJECT DEBATED IN PARLIAMENT. 335 
 
 elsewhere taken place. The debate turned mainly 
 upon the question of disputed jurisdiction. That, in 
 fact, had now become the real (Question in dispute. It 
 was admitted, as before, that, in matters purely spi- 
 ritual, the Church courts had jurisdiction independent 
 of the civil ; but the question was, who shall decide, in 
 the last resort, as to whether a matter falls within the 
 spiritual or the civil jurisdiction? Let it be deter- 
 mined of any matter that it is spiritual, it then falls 
 within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church ; but 
 when a dispute arises as to whether the matter is really 
 within that jurisdiction, who shall authoritatively and 
 ultimately decide? Who shall authoritatively inter- 
 pret the statute which limits and defines the two inde- 
 pendent jurisdictions ? To this point almost entirely 
 the Church question had now been narrowed. On the 
 one side it was contended that the Church courts 
 should have the power of declaring the limits of their 
 own jurisdiction as by statute defined, leaving to the 
 civil courts the power of declaring theirs — that is, that 
 both should have equal power to interpret those civil 
 acts which defined the jurisdictions — both should have 
 the power of saying which was the true boundary line 
 of the conterminous fields. On the other, it was 
 argued that civil statutes fell to be interpreted by civil 
 tribunals — that statutes defining the jurisdictions fell, 
 as to the interpretation of them, within the civil pro- 
 vince, and could be finally and authoritatively deter- 
 mined solely by the court of last resort. 
 
 Most patiently and most earnestly was this debate 
 
336 CLAIM KEJECTED BY COMMONS. 
 
 conducted. Althou2:h the iwht honourable mover 
 proposed only that the House should resolve itself into 
 a Committee to take the petition into consideration, 
 the motion was negatived on a division of 211 to 76. 
 
 This discussion, with its decided and significant result, 
 was not without its effect on many. It was easy to 
 insinuate that the question had been blinked — that the 
 views of the Church had been misrepresented — that the 
 question was one which, from habit, the English mind 
 could not well comprehend.* These ingenious conside- 
 rations might satisfy some ; but there were others who, 
 when they saw the subject thus patiently and earnestly 
 discussed by the most accomplished and acute minds 
 of which the legislature could boast, and heard the 
 claims of the Church so emphatically pronounced to be 
 inconsistent with civil liberty by the constitutional 
 
 * The complaint, so frequently repeated, that the views and claims of the 
 party had been misunderstood and misrepresented, and, in short, could not 
 be made intelligible to Englishmen, can scarcely fail to suggest the fol- 
 lowing remarks of Cardinal Wiseman, in the Morning Herald of 12th 
 December 1855, with reference to the famous Austrian Concordat: "The 
 document in question," says the Cardinal, " came first to this country from 
 the con-espondent of a newspaper, Avho shewed, in the remarks with which 
 he accompanied it, that he did not know the meaning of the words that 
 were used in it. It was drawn up in the peculiar language of Catholic 
 ecclesiastical diplomacy ; that is to say, the words used in it had a different 
 meaning from that of the ordinary Latin, in which it was written ; and it 
 required a person versed in ecclesiastical Latin, and in the principles of the 
 canon law, to understand it, and interpret its meaning and significance." 
 
 We may remark that, by that Concordat is secured what some would hail 
 as true spiritual independence. The following is the Pope's own version of 
 it: "It has been ruled that the mutual relations of the bishops of the 
 Austrian states, and those of their clergy and of the faithful population, 
 with our Apostolic see, in all that regards spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs, 
 should be perfectly free,, without being subject to any royal authority of any 
 kind whatever." — London Morning Uerald, Gth December 1855. 
 
SUBJECT DISCUSSED IN HOUSE OF LORDS. 337 
 
 guardians of the people's rights — the representatives of 
 British freedom — were led to pause, and to reflect, and 
 to examine anew the grounds on which they had joined 
 with others in upholding these claims. 
 
 The Claim of Rights having been thus emphatically 
 rejected by the British Commons, it seems not to have 
 been considered either expedient or necessary to pre- 
 sent the petition of the Church to the Upper House. 
 The subject, however, was speedily brought before that 
 august body by Lord Campbell, in a series of resolutions 
 on the existing dissensions in the Church of Scotland. 
 With equal earnestness and patience as in the Lower 
 House, was the whole subject discussed by the Peers. 
 Anxiety for the welfare of the Church was equally 
 manifested ; readiness to secure the true ris^hts of the 
 people Avas equally displayed; and the high claims of 
 the rulers of the Church were not less emphatically 
 rejected. One after another, the most distinguished 
 members of the House, who had given the most earnest 
 attention to the subject — men of high attainments, 
 versed in the law, acquainted w^ith the topics in 
 debate in all their bearings, of various political 
 leanings — these men, one after another, rose and in 
 their places pronounced the claims of the Church, 
 especially as read in the light of the Church's actings, 
 to be in violation of the constitution, and inconsistent 
 with civil liberty. The views of these men were at 
 least worthy of regard. It was a solemn thing to see 
 the three branches of the legislature of this great 
 empire — the Crown, the Lords, the Commons — each 
 
338 TUE TIir.EE ESTATES REJECT CLAIM. 
 
 in their turn, not merely listening with patience to all 
 the arguments which the leaders of the Church could 
 adduce in favour of their demands, but painfully 
 mastering the subject, and each in their turn declar- 
 ing that these demands were inconsistent with civil free- 
 dom. We do not wonder that the spectacle affected 
 some, and led them, even at the last hour, to inquire 
 whether professional prejudices had not some effect in 
 binding them so tenaciously to claims thus so strikingly 
 condemned. 
 
 Lord Campbell, in introducing the subject to the 
 House of Lords, declared his readiness to support a 
 measure for the extension of popular rights ; but, on 
 the subject of independent jurisdiction, the Church, he 
 said, had set up claims that were inadmissible. Her 
 claims amounted to a demand that the Church courts 
 should not be questioned for anything they might think 
 fit to do. The consequences of the assumption which 
 they made might not be the resuscitation of all the 
 abuses which grew up from that same root in the 
 Church of Rome; but the yoke of the Church might 
 again be made most galling, and its burden most in- 
 tolerable, if such demands as were now made were 
 conceded. There existed in no quarter — certainly not 
 in the House of Lords, or in the other House of Parlia- 
 ment — any inclination to oppress the Church of Scot- 
 land ; but, on the contrary, every desire — as they re- 
 garded her with high and unfeigned respect — to render 
 her, if possible, still more efficient than she had been as 
 an instrument of good to that country. 
 
CHAPEL ACT. 339 
 
 The Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Brougham, the Earl of 
 Haddington, and Lord Cottenham, expressed their 
 views at length, and all of them concurred in the neces- 
 sity of refusing the Church's demands. 
 
 A few months previously to the rejection of the Claim 
 of Rights, another important decision, adverse to the 
 pretensions of the Church, had been pronounced by the 
 Court of Session, in the well-known Stewarton case. 
 Actuated, no doubt, by the best of motives, w^ith the 
 view at once of elevatino; the status and increasino; the 
 efficiency and numbers of a class of ministers who had 
 occupied a somewhat anomalous position w^ithin her 
 pale, and, at the same time, of paving the way for the 
 return of secedino; ministers and cons^reo-ations to her 
 communion, the Assembly of 1834 had passed the cele- 
 brated Chapel Act. These objects were most laudable. 
 Doubts, indeed, w^ere entertained, at the time, of the 
 competency of the measure, including, as it did, not 
 only the admission of these clergymen to the full status 
 of ministers of the Church as by law^ established, to 
 sit and deliberate and vote in the Church's various 
 courts, but other dependent and connected acts, which 
 a little reflection might have shewn to be not only of 
 great importance, but bordering upon, if not directly 
 entering into, the province of civil rights. The sup- 
 porters of the measure viewed it chiefly in the one 
 aspect of clothing one class of ministers with rights to 
 which, according to their view of the Presbyterian 
 polity, they were by their ordination entitled ; and, 
 viewed simply in this light, nothing seemed more 
 
340 WHAT THE CHAPEL ACT INCLUDED. 
 
 obvious than that the Act was one purely spiritual, 
 and, therefore, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
 ecclesiastical courts.* 
 
 This Act, however, did not stand alone. It was 
 connected with others ; and, when viewed, as it must 
 be, along with them, the complexion of the whole 
 measure was materially altered. It implied, for in- 
 stance, the erection of numerous kirk-sessions, each 
 sending, along with the minister, a lay representative to 
 the various Church courts, and thus ultimately not only 
 increasing to a large extent the number, but altering 
 materially the proportion of lay and clerical members 
 
 * Upon this subject new light seemed suddenly to dawn upon the 
 Church. She was taught to consider the chapel system as not merely 
 inexpedient but sinful — as infringing on an institution of the Head of the 
 Church, "The Church, then," as Dr. Lockhart remarks, "must, in terms 
 of the 8th clause (of the Protest of the Free Church), have been violating 
 the institution of Christ from the moment that a chapel minister was or- 
 dained; and certain eminent men amongst the protestors, when they left 
 their country benefices for chapels in the metropolis, not by civil consiraint, 
 but by voluntary choice^ must have sinned with a high hand in placing 
 themselves in a position where, in terms of the 8th clause, they were not 
 ' allowed to rule as well as to teacli agreeably to the institution of the office 
 by the Head of the Church.'" — Ansirei\ pp. l-'^, 19. 
 
 Although, during the late controversy, the cliapel system Avas unduly 
 depreciated, and its benefits unkindly overlooked, there is but one ^pinion 
 as to the desirableness of raising the ministers of chapels to the full status 
 of parochial clergy, and of erecting the chapel districts into separate 
 parishes, enjoying tlie full benefits of the parochial system. Availuig 
 herself of the Act of the legislature, passed to facilitate the division of 
 parishes, the Church has not been slothful in the matter. Under the able 
 superintendence of the indefatigible Convener of the Endowment Com- 
 mittee, that noble scheme of the Church promises, with the Divine blessing, 
 to make the desert places of the land to blossom as the rose, and to rejoice 
 with joy and singing. Already has i)rovision been made " for the endow- 
 ment of nearly fifty new parishes, most of v.hich have now been erecfed 
 by the proper court." And great jjrogress is being made towards the 
 endowment and erection of 150 more. All honour to the man who has 
 devoted himself so laboriously to the great enterprise ! 
 
WHAT THE CHAPEL ACT INCLUDED. 341 
 
 in the supreme Church court, the number of burgh 
 elders remaining stationary, while the number of other 
 members might be indefinitely increased, every increase 
 adding to the preponderance of the clerical over the 
 lay. It implied the territorial subdivision of parishes 
 — itself surely not a spiritual act — and the withdrawing 
 of parties, — nay, of whole districts, — without consult- 
 ing them in any shape, from under the superintendence 
 of one minister and kirk-session, and handino^ them 
 over to another, just as a proprietor would re-arrange 
 and subdivide his farms, and hand over his flocks in 
 companies to this new shepherd or to that — a deed not 
 quite consistent with the Non-intrusion principle, inas- 
 much as, if it did not force a minister into the pulpit 
 against the will of the congregation, it might force both 
 a minister and his whole session upon a reluctant dis- 
 trict. 
 
 For five years, however, this measure continued in 
 operation, undisturbed by any civil interference, and it 
 is not to be denied that many important benefits had 
 resulted from it. Still, as the act of the Church, it was 
 questionable. It was clearly, in many of its conse- 
 quences, an act of such a nature, that the State had a 
 right to insist on being consulted in the matter, and 
 that the more especially that it had reserved to itself 
 power in the plantation of kirks and subdivision of 
 parishes, and had entrusted that duty to a special civil 
 court. Even in the period of the Second Reformation, 
 the Church, w^ith all her lofty claims, had not consi- 
 dered it derogatory to her jurisdiction to refer the " dis- 
 
342 ITS INVASIONS. 
 
 ceriiing of a distinct paroclie," to the Parliament.* It 
 was also a matter in which private rights were obviously 
 implicated. Parishioners were entitled to question the 
 authority which separated them from the superinten- 
 dence and benefits of that Church and minister and 
 session to which, by the civil laws of the realm, they had 
 a right ; and both ministers and laymen were entitled 
 to be satisfied as to the lawfulness of the composition of 
 those tribunals by which their causes might be deter- 
 mind. They might even be ready to admit the scrip- 
 tural authority of a dissenting Presbytery or Synod 
 to be equal to that of the courts of the Church Estab- 
 lished ; but that admission would cive no claim to these 
 courts to try their cases as members of the Established 
 Church. They had a right to know that the court 
 which was to try their cause was the proper court, and 
 its members the lawful members, to whom the judging 
 of such causes belonged : for in a free country, every 
 |)arty must have the right of appeal against the judg- 
 ment of incompetent judges. 
 
 For five years, as has been stated, this measure con- 
 tinued in operation undisturbed by any civil interfer- 
 ence, and might so have continued till this present hour, 
 for anything that the civil courts could or would have 
 done in the matter, but for the interference of parties 
 who believed that their civil interests were invaded by 
 the operation of the measure in a particular casc.f 
 
 * See Note A. 
 
 f A distinct narrative of the important and somewhat curious Stewarton 
 case, together with an able exposure of the misconceptions to which it 
 
NOTE TO CHAPTER XIV. 343 
 
 NOTE TO CHAPTER XIY. 
 Note A. 
 
 " Sir Alexander Carnegie of Bonnymoorie having built a cliurch 
 upon his owne expenses, did supplicat that it might be decerned 
 to be a distinct paroche. As lykewayes a supplication of Duncan 
 Campbell of Gleulyon to the same eifeet, referred to the Parlia- 
 ment." — Records of the Kirk^ Assembly 1639. In 1581 we find 
 his Majesty, with advice of the Lords of his secret council, giving 
 instructions to the Assembly upon the subject of the corijoining and 
 subdividing of parishes — " small parishes to be united, and the 
 great divided, for the better sustentation of the ministrie, and the 
 more commodious resort of the common people to their kirks." 
 " There is also," say these instructions of his Majesty, "drawin the 
 forme of a letter of ours to be Avritten to some of the principall noble 
 and gentle men, and certain of the ministers within the bounds of 
 every eldership, to convene, advise, and report unto us their ad- 
 vice, &c." — Calderwood^ vol. iii., pp. 516, 517. From Calderwood 
 we moreover learn that even the erection of what would now be 
 termed a Chapel of Ease, was considered a matter which required 
 to be ratified by Parliament. The question being moved in the 
 Assembly 1600, " the Assembly, after long reasoning, thought it 
 lawful, and declared they would r.ssist the same as a godly work, 
 and crave the same to he ratified in Parliament so oft as it should 
 occur." 
 
 It is worthy of remark that in 1834 the Chapel Act was disap- 
 proved of by many who afterwards assumed a prominent position 
 in the Free Kirk. It was disapproved of by Dr. Chalmers, Dr. 
 Gordon, Dr. Clason, Dr. Patrick Macfarlane, and many others 
 whose names stand high in the list of the seceders. Dr. Macfarlane 
 " strongly condemned the Act " — he " doubted the poAver of the 
 Assembly to pass such a law." 
 
 gave rise, and the fallacious conclusions -wliich, during the heat of the con- 
 troversy, it was attempted to deduce from it, may be found in tlie ''Exam- 
 ination of the Claims of the Free Church," by the late John Wilson, D.D., 
 minister of Stirling, pp. 174-217. 
 
CHAPTEE XV. 
 
 Preparations for immediate Secession — Means adopted to secure Adherents 
 — To secure Pecuniary Support — Assembly 1843 — The Secession — Se- 
 ceders claimed a Majority — Claim examined — In a Minority in almost 
 all the Synods and Presbyteries of the Church — Striking results of 
 Analysis of List of Clergy in 1843 — Had the Question been submitted 
 to the Church at large, the Schism would have been condemned by an 
 overwhelming Majority of Clergy. 
 
 The memorable and decisive vote in the House of 
 Commons, on the 8th of ]\Iarch 1843, had sealed the 
 fate of the movement part j in the Church. That vote 
 had peremptorily refused those claims, without the ac- 
 knowledgment of which they had declared they could 
 not continue in connexion with the Establishment. Al- 
 ready most vigorous measures had been adopted in an- 
 ticipation of a probable secession, and fresh efforts were 
 now put forth with an energy seldom equalled in any 
 cause. Now that a secession seemed almost inevitable, 
 it was of the utmost importance, both that the masses 
 should, as far as possible, be interested in the movement 
 and attached to the cause, and that means should be 
 adopted for securing an adequate maintenance for out- 
 going ministers. To ensure these objects, all was done 
 that wisdom could devise, and energy and zeal could 
 execute. For many previous months " the doctrine had 
 sounded powerfully" from many a pulpit and platform, 
 until multitudes had been persuaded that the cause was 
 one from which no sincere Christian could withhold his 
 
PREPARATIONS FOR SECESSION. 345 
 
 support ; and, so early as the time of the Convocation, 
 the scheme of the Sustentation Fund had been pro- 
 pounded by its illustrious author, and hailed by not a 
 few as a scheme which, if required, was likely to realise 
 at least such temporary support as might be needful 
 while the period of the secession should continue. Now, 
 however, these efforts were redoubled. Under the ex- 
 citement of the crisis, the determination was formed not 
 merely to increase as much as possible the numerical 
 strength of the secession, but to attempt utterly to de- 
 stroy the Established Church, as an institution so de- 
 graded as to be unworthy of the nation's respect. A 
 war of extermination was proclaimed. " When we are 
 driven fcrth from the Estabhshment," said Dr. Candlish, 
 " the same view of duty which led us to leave it, will 
 also, of course, lead us to aim at the overthrow of the 
 Establishment that remains. . . . We will be com- 
 pelled, not by resentment, not by indignation, not by 
 jealousy, but by the same sense of duty which induced 
 us to leave it, to become its sworn enemies." 
 
 Such was the avowed purpose of some of the leaders 
 — a purpose even more resolutely entertained, and less 
 prudently expressed, by not a few of their followers. 
 Even after every allowance has been made for the 
 strong excitement which at the time prevailed, and for 
 the disappointment which many were beginning to feel 
 when the necessity of seceding began to be realised, the 
 broad mantle of charity does no more than cover some 
 of the acts to which our brethren considered them- 
 selves warranted to resort. 
 
346 MEANS ADOPTED TO EXCITE. 
 
 The effect, upon sincere but uneducated men, of 
 those denunciations which were emitted, exceeded in 
 some cases what even the most determined had anti- 
 cipated. At the head of the party were men of the 
 highest Christian character, whose praises were in all 
 the churches, and the influence of their names attached 
 itself, in many instances, to efforts to which they would 
 have scorned to stoop. Besides, the calculated effect 
 even of these efforts was very much surpassed. The 
 exaggerated statements of pulpit or platform orators 
 conveyed still more exaggerated views, when addressed 
 to the excited imaginations of illiterate though well- 
 intentioned men. Not otherwise can we account for 
 the strange, and sometimes even ludicrous, opinions 
 conscientiously held by many respecting the Church of 
 Scotland — opinions, indeed, now quietly, though im- 
 perceptibly, giving way under the influence of facts 
 which, in spite of prejudice, will force themselves upon 
 the observation — but opinions which, lingering in the 
 remoter districts of the land, it may require the inter- 
 course and experience of yet many years altogether to 
 dislodge. 
 
 The means adopted by our brethren for the promul- 
 gation of their statements, were not less unwarranted 
 by the constitution of the Church of which they still 
 were members, than were those statements themselves 
 unwarranted by facts. Under the authority of a conven- 
 tion not recognised by the constitution, measures were 
 adopted for the invasion of every parish, whether with 
 or without the sanction of its minister and kirk-session ; 
 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS. 347 
 
 and, under this authority, busy agents held inflammatory 
 meetings, and urged on the people to abandon the Church 
 of their fathers. It may be said that the extraordinary 
 position in which they found themselves placed ren- 
 dered necessary their adoption of extraordinary measures; 
 and this, in truth, is the utmost that can be said in de- 
 fence of the strange proceedings adopted. Even this 
 defence cannot be admitted as altogether satisfactory. 
 Urged on by their excited feelings, and by the pressure 
 of circumstances, they were subverting that Presby- 
 terian polity to which they professed so strenuously to 
 adhere. For the time they were putting the authority 
 of a voluntary convention above the authority of those 
 spiritual courts which the constitution of the Church 
 recognised. Without any sanction from Presbytery or 
 Synod or Assembly, they intruded into parishes, in 
 violation of constitutional order, nay, in spite of solemn 
 Acts of the General Assembly of the Church. It 
 would be difficult to shew that they were not virtually 
 implicated in something not very different from that 
 which they had imputed to the Strathbogie ministers. 
 If not at the bidding of a civil court, at least at the 
 bidding of an unconstitutional and irresponsible con- 
 vention, they were setting at nought not merely Acts 
 of Assembly, but the comely order and discipline of 
 the Church of Scotland. We cannot in our conscience 
 absolve our brethren from the charo-e of bavins; sinned 
 in this matter. Much, however, must certainly be 
 ascribed to the unprecedented circumstances in which 
 they were placed. Seldom have men been so severely 
 
348 SCSTENTATION. 
 
 tried. To this subject we have adverted most unwil- 
 lingly. We have done so only because at the time it 
 formed a very prominent feature in the transactions 
 which we are now reviewing ; and we shall not enlarge 
 upon it. A better day has dawned, and mutual for- 
 bearance is beginning to occupy the place which irritated 
 feeling had for a time usurped. 
 
 While thus laboriously exerting themselves to in- 
 crease the number of their adherents, they were, at the 
 same time, exerting themselves to secure some equiva- 
 lent for those endowments which were about to be 
 abandoned. Do we blame them for so acting? God 
 forbid. Had they made no attempt to secure provision 
 for themselves and for their families, the boldness of 
 their deed might have called forth the admiration of 
 some, but it would have indicated the boldness, not of 
 faith, but of infatuation or presumption. We question 
 the correctness of the statement, " that they were not 
 careful to inquire what their after condition, as to 
 temporal support, might be." * The subject was one 
 which, both at the time and ever since, has justly oc- 
 cupied some portion of their care. A system better 
 organised, or more zealously worked, for the voluntary 
 sustentation of ministers, never has been developed 
 than that which owes its origin to the genius and de- 
 votedness of the venerated Chalmers. In the Convo- 
 cation he had "expounded his views upon this sub- 
 ject at great length, and shewed how, by a united effort, 
 the offerings of the people might be made to replace 
 
 * Ten Years' Conflict, vol. ii., p. 584. 
 
PREPARATIONS FOR ASSEMBLY 1843. 349 
 
 the alienated endowments of the State." '' To him the 
 idea owed its origin and birth," and " prodigious pro- 
 gress had been made towards the realising of it, before 
 that day arrived when it was to become the chief 
 earthly dependence of the disestablished Church." * 
 
 Meanwhile, the day was approaching on which the 
 memorable Assembly of 1843 had been appointed to 
 meet. To that day the leaders of the movement looked 
 forward as the day on which the anticipated secession 
 was to be consummated. Their plans had been matured 
 carefully, and with admirable skill. A multitude of ad- 
 herents, throughout every district of the land, had de- 
 clared their readiness to cast in their lot with them. 
 The promise of provision for outgoing ministers had 
 been freely and liberally tendered. The " Protest " had 
 been prepared by which, as Dr. Buchanan expresses it, 
 " her separation from the State was to be consummated 
 by the Church." A difficulty, however, had presented 
 itself. To give to the act of secession the appearance 
 of being an act of the Church separating herself from 
 the State, it was necessary that, at the least, there 
 should be a majority of the Assembly voting in favour 
 of the solemn deed. For this purpose chielly, it would 
 seem, had the secession been deferred till the period of 
 the Assembly's meeting. For this it had been deter- 
 mined to brave the charge of continuins^ for some 
 months in connexion with a Church, connexion with 
 which was declared to be sinful ; and of endeavourinof 
 to undermine that Church, while yet this connexion 
 * Ten Tears' Conflict, vol. ii., pp. 584, 586. See also Note A. 
 
350 EFFORTS TO SECURE MAJORITY. 
 
 was maintained. Great efforts had been made to secure 
 a majority. Doubtless with this design an appeal had 
 been taken ao^ainst the decision in the Stewarton case 
 — an appeal which was not fallen from until some re- 
 turns to the Assembly had been made, nor until " there 
 arose cause to apprehend that the Court of Session 
 would grant interdict, if sought, against ministers and 
 elders of quoad sacra churches taking their seats, not- 
 withstanding the appeal." 
 
 In several Presbyteries the moderate party, acting 
 on the decision in the Stewarton case, protested against 
 any quoad sacra ministers voting in the election of re- 
 presentatives ; and thereafter, constituting themselves 
 into w^hat they considered the lawful Presbytery, chose 
 their representatives for the supreme court. In this 
 manner, double returns were, in some cases, made to 
 the Assembly. 
 
 Partly from this, and also from various other causes, 
 it now became obvious that the leaders could not cal- 
 culate on obtaining a majority, and consequently that 
 to incur the risk of a vote on the question of secession 
 was to incur the hazard, perhaps the certainty, of such 
 a decision as would have deprived their act of even the 
 semblance of being an act of the Church. Had the 
 question been brought to a vote on the terms "secede" 
 or " not secede," and had it carried " not," no plaus- 
 ible pretext could have been devised for dignifying the 
 secession with the name of the " Disruption," and the 
 act would have appeared to all, in what w^as really its 
 true character, the simple act of a minority — a mere 
 
IMPOETANCE OF SECURING MAJORITY. 351 
 
 secession, large indeed and influential, but having no 
 even plausible claim to assume the title of " the 
 Church," or to appropriate to the deed itself any other 
 term than that of an important secession. 
 
 Had the question been submitted to a lawful Assembly, 
 and the decision been solemnly come to by that Assem- 
 bly, constituting the representative Church of Scotland, 
 that the Church could no longer continue in connexion 
 vi'itli the State, — in that case, there might have been 
 some seeming and plausible grounds for denominating 
 this act of the Church representative " the Disruption," 
 meaning thereby the disruption from the State, and 
 there miMit have been some seemino- orrounds for our 
 brethren claimino' to themselves the title of the discs- 
 tablished Church of Scotland. Nothing short of this, 
 however, could have afforded even plausible grounds 
 for such a title, or for such a claim. But no such vote 
 was given — no such vote was attempted. The party 
 did not risk the attem.pt. They were quite alive to the 
 vast importance of gaining, had that been possible, the 
 sanction of the Church. They had made every effoi't to 
 f^ecure it ; but, convinced that it was doubtful, if not 
 impossible, they shunned the contest. They would not 
 risk the vote. They withdrew before the Assembly 
 had been constituted, and forming themselves, on their 
 own authority, into a separate body, they unwarrantably 
 claimed the same position and title as they would have 
 done had their proceedings been sanctioned by a solemn 
 and deliberate vote of the Church. 
 
 It is true that the seceding brethren did protest 
 
352 ASSEMBLY 1843. 
 
 against the Assembly about to be held, on the ground 
 that the liberty of Presbyteries in the election of re- 
 presentatives had been interfered with, that commis- 
 sioners elected had been interdicted from taking their 
 seats, and that the Assembly was not and could not be 
 a free and lawful Assembly. But, however convinced 
 of the truth of the allegations which their protest con- 
 tained, that surely could never warrant their assump- 
 tion of that position and claim, which nothing could 
 have conferred short of the deliberate vote of a free and 
 lawful Assembly. Granting that their allegations are 
 correct, that circumstance could never have constituted 
 them the Church of Scotland, and their separation from 
 the State was just the separation of so many individuals, 
 not of a Church — the " Disruption " was a disrup- 
 tion not of the Church of Scotland, but of the Convoca- 
 tion and its adherents. The act was simply a great 
 secession. 
 
 The Assembly met on the 18th of May 1843. A 
 graphic and interesting description of the proceedings 
 of that memorable day is given by the author of the 
 "Ten Years' Conflict." We restrict ourselves to a 
 simple statement of the leading facts. 
 
 The commissioners from the various Presbyteries and 
 Burghs who had been chosen representatives to this 
 memorable Assembly having met in St. Andrew's 
 Church, Dr. Welsh, the Moderator of the previous 
 jenr, opened the meeting with a solemn prayer. As 
 yet the Assembly had not been formed ; Dr. Welsh, 
 indeed, protested against that step being taken. 
 
SECESSION. 353 
 
 "Fathers and brethren," said he, "according to the 
 usual form of procedure, this is the time for making up 
 the roll ; . . . . but I must protest against our 
 proceeding further ! " He then proceeded to read the 
 formal protest which had been previously agreed to 
 and signed, according to Dr. Buchanan, by " 203 
 members of the house ; " having concluded the reading 
 of which, he immediately withdrew, followed by all the 
 adherents present. 
 
 It was a solemn and melancholy hour which wit- 
 nessed the departure from the Church of Scotland of so 
 many devoted friends of the Redeemer's cause. Among 
 them were some "disturbed spirits," whose absence 
 few of those who remained would have much regretted, 
 but there were others over whose defection multitudes 
 lamented, and the loss of whose presence and services 
 in the Church was felt as a deprivation well-nigh irre- 
 parable. Of these not a few have been gathered to 
 their fathers, and their memories we shall ever cherish 
 as of highly honoured servants of the Lord. Others 
 yet remain, and our hearts cleave to them still as 
 " friends and brethren beloved," whose departure from 
 the principles of the early Reformation and from the 
 Church of our fathers we have much and deeply 
 lamented, and whose return to the Church of Scotland 
 we would hail with joy unspeakable, as an event the 
 most auspicious that could occur, and as tending to 
 render our Zion, as she is the freest, so the^ strongest, 
 Church in Christendom. " What would the receivinor 
 
 of them be but life from the dead ? " We blame their 
 
 z 
 
354 LEFT BEFORE ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTED. 
 
 (Jeed — we believe them to have been in error. But we 
 love them notwithstanding. And though new con- 
 nexions have been made, and new friendships formed, our 
 hearts, we confess, yearn over the past. We love our 
 brethren still. The prayer of our heart on their behalf 
 is, that God, even our God, may bless them, and that 
 even though it should be determined, in His holy and 
 mysterious providence, that we are never again to be 
 united here, we yet may be united hereafter and for 
 ever in that better world where we shall know even as 
 we are known. 
 
 It has been stated that our fathers and brethren, 
 members of the court, having tendered their protest to 
 the Assembly, withdrew. In point of fact, however, 
 there was no Assembly until after that event had taken 
 place. No Moderator had been elected — the Commis- 
 sion of the Queen had not been received — the roll of 
 members had not been made up — the Assembly had 
 not been constituted. The materials out of which the 
 House was to be constituted were there, but as yet the 
 Assembly had not been formed. They chose to avoid 
 a contest which might have left them no covert for the 
 claim that they represented the Church of Scotland. 
 It would have been a glorious triumph to retire under 
 the sanction of a deliberate vote, and carrying with 
 them the banners of the Church gained by a majority 
 of voices ; but the hope of such a result having been 
 . abandoned, they chose to avoid the risk, or rather cer- 
 ralnty, of a defeat, and to retire at such a stage that 
 they could still satisfy themselves and their adherents 
 
DID NOT RISK A VOTE. 355 
 
 that they had not sustained an overthrow. Their re- 
 treat was precipitate, but the time was prudently 
 chosen. It was expected by many that, even though 
 determined to depart, they would remain at least until 
 the letter from the Queen should be communicated, 
 especially as it was understood that, on this momentous 
 occasion, the royal communication w^ould be something 
 different from the brief and formal epistles of ordinary 
 times, and would contain an indication of willingness 
 on the part of the Crown to sanction such a measure as 
 would secure the people in their privileges, and the 
 Church courts in their rights, with reference to the 
 election and admission of ministers. They chose, how- 
 ever, to retire before one step was taken towards the 
 constituting of the Assembly, and under shelter of a 
 protest which denied the lawfulness of the Assembly 
 itself. They did not wait to test the legality of those 
 votes by which the members had been chosen. " The 
 hitherto dominant majority," says Dr. Bryce, ^'had 
 only before them a secession, w^hich, appearing to the 
 world as a voluntary act and self-imposed sacrifice, 
 might command some sympathy and respect — or a se- 
 paration which, forced upon them by the desertion of 
 the State, could not, they might think, redound to their 
 credit or advantage in any manner. The Non-intru- 
 sionists chose, perhaps, the wiser alternative ; for the 
 returns had rendered it doubtful at least if thev could 
 have carried the nomination to the chair of the Assem- 
 bly — much less if, under cover of a vote of the Church 
 herself, they could have achieved the schism which 
 
356 NO ASSEMBLY COULD EFFECT " DISRUPTION." 
 
 they perpetrated. They preferred, acordingly, to retire 
 under an act having no public or accredited character 
 attached to it." * 
 
 Such we believe to be a plain, unvarnished statement 
 of facts. The great event accomplished on the 18th of 
 May 1843, was simply a secession — no doubt a great 
 and most important secession — from the Church of 
 Scotland ; but it was nothing more. To represent it as a 
 disruption of the Church from the State — ^' a separation 
 from the State consummated by the Church" — is not 
 merely a misapplication of terms, but a perversion of fact. 
 No Act of Assembly could have consummated such a 
 separation. Before even a new legislative enactment 
 can become a law, it must have not merely the sanction 
 of an Assembly, however harmonious, but the subse- 
 quent approval of a majority of the Presbyteries of the 
 Church. No one Assembly is held, on such a matter, 
 fairly and conclusively to represent the mind of the 
 Church. But even this partial sanction was never af- 
 forded to the act of the out-goers. It was earnestly de- 
 sired and laboured for by the leaders, but it could not 
 be attained. They could not risk the issue of a vote. 
 They tendered their protest no one can say to whom, 
 and withdrew ere yet the Assembly had been consti- 
 tuted. As, however, it was a matter of great import- 
 ance to represent their act as an act of the Church, va- 
 rious and laboured attempts have been made to give 
 this colouring to the deed. Never were attempts more 
 vain. If on this foundation our brethren erect their 
 
 * Vol. ii., p. 369. 
 
NO ASSEMBLY SANCTIONED "DISRUPTION." 357 
 
 claim to be considered the Church of Scotland, they 
 btdld on a foundation as sandy and brittle as when they 
 rest it on their alleged adherence to the principles and 
 polity of the founders of the Church. In both the 
 one case and in the other they are reproved by clear 
 and incontrovertible facts. They claimed, at the ut- 
 most, a small and doubtful majority of the Assembly 
 1843; and to uphold that claim they were compelled, on 
 the one hand, to repudiate those members the validity 
 of whose elections their opponents were ready to main- 
 tain; and, on the other, to reckon as members those 
 whose right to sit was not only questioned, but utterly 
 denied. Our brethren surely had no right to boast of 
 a majority of votes in an Assembly at which they were 
 never present, and their absence from which, after all 
 the formalities of keenly contested elections, could not 
 be satisfactorily accounted for on any other ground than 
 that they feared defeat. 
 
 The truth is, that the materials out of which that 
 Assembly was to have been formed, were to a great ex- 
 tent of a questionable and anomalous complexion. Se- 
 veral Presbyteries had made double returns, and before 
 the Assembly could have been properly constituted, and 
 in a position to act either judicially or legislatively as the 
 lawful and acknowledged representative of the Church 
 of Scotland, the question must have been determined, 
 in these cases, as to which, if either, of these returns 
 were constitutionally valid. The ministers and elders 
 of quoad sacra churches had been sent as commissioners 
 from certain Presbyteries, and their right, had they at- 
 
358 XO APPEAL MADE TO ASSEMBLY. 
 
 tempted to exercise it, would have been peremptorily 
 denied. These were points which, in accordance with 
 the principles of the out-going party, should have been 
 determined by the Assembly itself, or by the parties 
 giving in commissions ; but, instead of this, they, ac- 
 cording to a preconcerted arrangement, left the As- 
 sembly-house before one question could be raised, and, 
 determining, on their own authority, that they were the 
 lawful representatives of the Church, they consummated 
 the schism and proclaimed themselves a " free and law- 
 ftil Assembly." These points they settled for them- 
 selves. They assumed them without discussion, and 
 acted accordingly. They were, according to Dr. Cand- 
 lish, " a majority of those wliom alone they could recognise 
 as lawful members of Assembly." 
 
 As, from the premature secession of our brethren, the 
 question was never determined as to who were or who 
 were not " lawful members of Assembly," instead of 
 simply denying the assumption that they constituted the 
 majority of members lawfully elected, we shall bring 
 the question regarding numbers to a surer and more 
 legitimate test — one which declares what was the deli- 
 berate mind of the Church far more unequivocally than 
 any assertion uttered by those who had declined the 
 hazard of a vote — nay, more unequivocally than could 
 have been done by any vote of any single Assembly. 
 
 Taking as our test the number of ministers who re- 
 mained as compared with those who seceded, it will be 
 seen, not only that a vast majority declared against the 
 schism, but that, even though ive include the ministers of 
 
TRUE TEST OF NUMBERS. 359 
 
 quoad sacra churches^ there was scarcely a Synod, and 
 only a few Presbyteries, througJiout the Chm^ch which 
 would not have condemned the deed; and, consequently, 
 that an Assembly composed of members duly chosen, 
 and representing the mind of the Church, would, had the 
 question been proposed, " Secede " or " Remain," have 
 left our seceding brethren in a comparatively unimpor- 
 tant minority. And that, had the votes of the quoad 
 sacra ministers been excluded, scarcely one Presbytery, 
 except within the Synods of Sutherland and Ross — 
 amounting in all to six — would have voted " Seceded 
 
 These are startlinor facts when contrasted with the 
 hasty assertions of those who, to cover their deed of 
 separation, and to defend their assumed title of the 
 " Church of Scotland," claimed for the act of secession 
 the authority of a majority of those who alone could be 
 recognised as lawful members of the Assembly of 1843. 
 But startling though they be, nevertheless they are facts. 
 
 In 1844 was published "A List of the Clergy of the 
 Kirk of Scotland, as on the 18th of May 1843, shewing 
 those who adhered to, and those who have since seceded 
 from, the Establishment." * 
 
 I. From that list the following facts are apparent : — 
 
 1. The number of the clergy in the Kirk of Scotland, in- 
 cluding the quoad sacra ministers, was . . 1203 
 
 2. The number which adhered to the Chiu'ch was . 752t 
 
 3. The number which seceded was . . . 451J 
 
 4. Thus shewing a majority remaining of . . 301 
 
 * Edinburgh, 1844, f Including 23 assistants and successors. 
 
 X Including 17 assistants and successors. 
 
360 CUKIOUS FACTS. 
 
 II. An analysis of this list further shews that— 
 
 1. Among the out-goers were included a great number of 
 quoad sacra ministers, amounting to . 
 
 2. The quoad sacra ministers remaining were 
 
 3. So that of parish ministers remained . . 681 
 
 4. While of parish ministers seceded only . . 289 
 
 162 
 71 
 
 392 
 
 5. Thus shewing a majority remaining of 
 So that greatly less than one-third of the parish mi- 
 nisters joined the secession. 
 
 III. A further analysis of this important list brings 
 out the following facts :— That, had the question been 
 submitted to the votes of the ministers of the separate 
 Presbyteries of the Church, even including quoad sacra 
 ministers — 
 
 1. Presbyteries would have voted " Remain " . . 60 
 
 2. Presbyteries would have voted " Secede " . . 18 
 And several of the latter would have carried this vote 
 by a majority of only one. A very few Presbyteries 
 would have been equally divided. 
 
 3. So that, of Presbyteries voting ''Remain,"" there woidd 
 
 have been a majority of . . . . 60 to 18 
 
 IV. And, lastly, had the votes o^giioad sacra ministers 
 been excluded, all the Presbyteries of the Church would 
 have voted against secession, with the exception of only 8 
 or 9, these being almost exclusively in the Synods of Ross 
 and Sutherland^ where ministers, it is too well known, 
 had long been under the unwholesome dread or domi- 
 nation of " the MEN." 
 
 These are facts, and they are both important and 
 striking. They require no comment. They speak for 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTEE XV. 361 
 
 themselves. They utter a voice both of reproof and 
 warning. Did our brethren who left us constitute the 
 Church of Scotland ? Was their act a disruption or a 
 schism ? * 
 
 NOTES TO CHAPTER XV. 
 Note A . 
 
 Assuredly we have no wish to undervahie the magnitude of 
 that sacrifice which was made when so many of our brethren 
 volmitarily abandoned the endowments of the Established Chm*ch. 
 It was a noble spectacle which was exhibited on the part of those 
 who were willing to make such a sacrifice for what they believed 
 to be the cause of truth. Nevertheless the value and the magni- 
 tude of the sacrifice have been overestimated. Many deductions 
 must be made if we would arrive at a correct idea on the subject. 
 As may be seen, p. 359, the total number who seceded was 
 451. Of these 162 were chapel ministers. These must be with- 
 drawn if we w'ould estimate the number of the sufi'erers, it being 
 well known that, as a body, no sacrifice was required of or anti- 
 cipated by them, and that, on the contrary, the circumstances of 
 many of them, with regard to income, were materially benefited 
 by the change. The parties who were really called on to make 
 up their minds to a severe loss were the ministers of country 
 parishes — amounting to greatly fewer than one would imagine 
 who looks simply at the gross number alleged to have seceded. 
 These have been the real sutferers. These are the men who 
 truly sacrificed their livings. Generally speaking, they have 
 meekly endured. But who can tell the privations to which some 
 of them may have been compelled to submit ? Above all, who 
 can estimate the sufferings of generous minds when forced, as 
 many of these men have been, year after year, to urge the bene- 
 volence of reluctant con gi-egat ions ? 
 
 An able and much respected clergyman — the Rev. John Purves, 
 Free Church minister at Jedburgh — at a meeting of his Presbytery 
 
 * See Note B. 
 
362 NOTES TO CHAPTER XV. 
 
 held on the 16th of February 1858, in moving an overture to the 
 General Assembly on the Sustentation Fund, makes very special 
 allusion to the frequency and urgency of those harassing appeals 
 which ministers have been compelled to make in connexion with 
 the subject of their own maintenance. He refers to the fact that 
 the country ministers Avho seceded are the sufferers, while the in- 
 comes of town ministers are undiminished. Of the former, many, 
 he saj^s, are on two-thirds, some even on one-half of their previ- 
 ous incomes. Such are the circumstances of these devoted men. 
 Meanwhile, there is no lack of resources in the Church, but these 
 are diverted to other objects. " Education has been puslied, whe- 
 ther much needed or no, to be upsides, forsooth, with the paro- 
 chial schools. The foreign missions have been pushed . . . 
 by associations which necessarily encroach on the Sustentation 
 Fund." He alludes to the " costly colleges — most costly to the 
 Church at large, notwithstanding the munificent, but foolish and 
 unprofitable benefactions received." And, referring to the means 
 hitherto resorted to for extorting a living to the country ministers, 
 notwithstanding the magnificence of those flourishing schemes 
 which have gained such glory for the Church, he says — " It has 
 been, in fact, the most painful thing to every man of delicate feel- 
 ings, since the origin of the Disruption Church. , It has been a 
 cross not laid upon the backs, but crushing the very heart of most 
 of us. I would not undergo again the agony it has cost me these 
 dozen or fourteen years, for any consideration under heaven. . 
 . . . "We were compelled, from year's end to year's end, to 
 occupy every Presbytery with money affiiirs, and, instead of going 
 to the pulpit with the rich blessings of heaven in our hands, there 
 to proclaim them free as the air we breathe, to carry on an eter- 
 nal wrangle and reproach with the people about their own nig- 
 gardly supplies. I believe already our ministry has suffered dam- 
 age from this cause. Its very nature and design is becoming 
 
 clouded in the eyes of our people It is not now so 
 
 much a contest with us to obtain their acceptance of our own 
 dearly earned and freely proclaimed blessings, but a contest on 
 their part to resist our demands, and hold fast their goods. I 
 could weep tears of bitterest agony over such a loss of character 
 and such an obscuration, if not total blighting, of one's holy mi- 
 nistry, and I for one will be a partner in such a hideous bank- 
 ruptcy no longer." 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER XV. 363 
 
 Note B. 
 
 The published list which furnishes the data from which we de- 
 duce the preceding striking and unquestionable results, of course 
 does not contain the names of elders returned as members of the 
 several Presbyteries. These are subject to continual fluctuations, 
 being elected only from Synod to Synod. The clerical members 
 only are the permanent constituents of the courts. It is of them 
 only that we speak ; it is with them only that we have to do. 
 
 The accuracy of the list will probably not be disputed. On 
 comparing it with a statement of the relative numbers given in a 
 Free Church publication, I find the difference so trifling as to be 
 unworthy of notice. The analysis of it reveals several curious 
 and striking facts besides those referred to in the text. One or 
 two may be noted. 
 
 1st. It is worthy of remark that, even including quoad sacra 
 ministers, there was a strong majority against the schism in every 
 Synod of the Church, with the exception of two — these being, 1. 
 The Synod of Ross ; and, 2. The Synod of Sutherland and Caith- 
 ness ; each including only three Presbyteries. 
 
 2d. It may be mentioned, as a curious fact, that the Presbytery 
 of Edinburgh ranks next to these two Synods as presenting a de- 
 cided majority of seceders. The quoad sacra votes brought up 
 the metropolitan Presbytery to the mark of Ross and Sutherland. 
 Of parish ministers, a majority in the Presbytery were against 
 the secession. 
 
 3d. In many Presbyteries, the seceding minority was trifling. 
 In each of nine Presbyteries, there was but one solitary member 
 who supported the secession. In each of twelve, there were only 
 two. In numbers, there were only three. 
 
 In a word, this valuable document shews that, for its imposing 
 effect, the secession was at least as much indebted to the admir- 
 able skill and tact of its originators, as to the number of its cleri- 
 cal supporters. A single glance at the list reveals the facts of the 
 case. Except in comparatively few districts, the gaps occumng 
 in the seceding columns strike the eye at once, and, in many 
 pages, the few scattered names irresistibly suggest the oft-re- 
 peated words — "Apparent rari nantes in gurgite vasto." 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Aspect of Assembly after Secession — Constitution of Assembly peculiar — 
 Necessity of Legislative Interference — Scotch Benefices Act, Bill of the 
 " Middle Party " — Provisions of the Measure in strict accordance with 
 Revolution Settlement — Isaac Taylor's Picture of Voluntaryism — Facts 
 will force Conviction in spite of Prejudice — Conclusion. 
 
 No sooner had our brethren completed their well- 
 ordered secession, by withdrawing in imposing proces- 
 sion from the Church in which the Assembly was about 
 to hold its meetings, than the members holding com- 
 missions from the Presbyteries and Burghs proceeded 
 to constitute the House. With feelino;s chastened and 
 deeply solemnised by the peculiar circumstances in 
 which they felt themselves placed, yet without any un- 
 necessary delay, they betook themselves to the duty 
 which their position demanded. There were those who 
 imagined that the shock of the great convulsion would 
 utterly paralyse their efforts. Of the admirers of those 
 who had gone forth, some lingerers remained, in the 
 hope, perhaps, of witnessing the dire confusion that 
 should follow — of seeing the representatives of the 
 bleeding Church brought " to their wits' end," gazing 
 in each other's faces in blank astonishment, like men in 
 despair, not knowing what to do nor whither to turn 
 for help. These lingerers were disappointed. In her 
 hour of trial, God had not forsaken the Church of 
 Scotland. She had sustained a heavy blow. Her con- 
 
ASPECT or ASSEMBLY AFTEE THE SECESSION. 365 
 
 stitution had been assailed — her high towers had been 
 shaken — many noble sons had deserted her to become 
 her bitter foes. But the loiterers who remained, instead 
 of being gratified by the scene which they expected, 
 were rebuked by a noble illustration, in the case of 
 many, but especially of the venerable father whom the 
 unanimous Assembly called to occupy their chair, of 
 the glowing words of the Roman poet : — 
 
 " Justum, et tenacem propositi virum, 
 Non civium ardor prava jubentium, 
 Non wiltus instantis tjTanni 
 
 Mente quatit solida. 
 
 ***** 
 
 Si fractus illabatur orbis, 
 Impavidum ferient ruiuse." * 
 
 The courage of the members was equal to the great 
 emergency. The Assembly was constituted, and forth- 
 with the business proceeded, as if neither delay nor in- 
 terruption had occurred. It was only as if a stone had 
 been rolled into a placid stream : there w^as the heavy 
 plunge, and then the eddying circles, and then the 
 current flowing as smoothly as before. And so the 
 disappointed lingerers removed, and betook them to 
 more congenial scenes, in time, perhaps, to witness the 
 incident so well and so graphically described by Dr. 
 Buchanan in the following words : — 
 
 "A heavy thunder-cloud had for some time darkened 
 the heavens, and, as the eye ranged at that particular 
 
 * Neither the fury of his fellow-citizens demanding wrongful measures, 
 nor the frown of the threatening tyrant, shakes from his tixed determina- 
 tion the man just and firm in his resolve. Were the shattered heavens to 
 fall upon him, the ruins would strike him undismayed. 
 
366 CONSTITUTION OF ASSEMBLY PECCLTAR. 
 
 moment over the dense mass of human beings who 
 covered the immense area of the low-roofed hall, indi- 
 vidual forms had almost ceased to be distinguishable 
 through the sombre shade. The Psalm which Dr. 
 Chalmers had chosen was the Forty-third. He began 
 at that touching and beautiful line : — 
 
 " * send thy light forth and thy truth ! ' 
 
 and, as the words sounded through the hall, the sun, 
 escaping from behind his cloudy covering, and darting 
 through the windows which pierced the roof, his bril- 
 liant beams turned on the instant the preceding dark- 
 ness into day. It was one of those incidents which 
 only superstition could misunderstand, but which, at 
 the same time, is entitled to its own place among those 
 traits of the picturesque which belonged to the scenes 
 we are describing." * 
 
 The constitution of the Assembly 1843 w^as in some 
 respects peculiar. The withdrawal of so many holding 
 
 * Ten Years' Conflict, vol. ii., pp. 603, 604. The Free Church could not 
 have selected for her historian a man of more consummate skill than the 
 accomplished author of the "Ten Years' Conflict." He knows to speak a 
 A\ord in season to every various class. No circumstance escapes him, the 
 narration of which may contribute to his purposed efl'ect. Tlie incident 
 connected with the picture of King "William in the reception room (vol. ii., 
 p. 589), as well as that alluded to in the text, would, no doubt, have their 
 effect on minds of a certain class. It may be true that "superstition alone 
 could misunderstand " them. But if they have a meaning at all, as this 
 fiveat seems to imply, it is superstition alone that will attempt to read their 
 meaning. The ai^e of omen-seeking is not yet past. Yjxen beyond the 
 bounds of Sutherland and Ross, the narration of these httle incidents Avould 
 have its own etl'ect. Perhaps it would not occur that the Revolution 
 Settlement was trampled on by those who were leaving the Church, whose 
 privileges that Settlement secured, or that the gleam whic'i succeeded the 
 darkness of the thuiuler-cloud did not withhold its cheering radiance from 
 the Assembly of the "Bond." 
 
CHAEACTER OF ITS PROCEEDINGS. 367 
 
 commissions from the various Presbyteries had greatly 
 lessened the number of representatives. Many Presby- 
 teries had no representatives in the house. There was 
 necessarily an unusual preponderence of those who, of 
 late years, had chiefly furnished the opposition. Cer- 
 tainly that Assembly did not exhibit a full representa- 
 tion of the Clmrch in point of number, nor, in all re- 
 spects, a correct representation in point of sentiment. 
 And had the various questions which the House was 
 called on summarily to dispose of, been submitted to an 
 Assembly similarly constituted to those which have 
 suceeded, while the final results, in each case, might, 
 and probably would have been the same, the method of 
 disposing of some of them might, and probably would 
 have been different. The Veto law, for instance, in- 
 stead of being simply ignored as a nullity, would pro- 
 bably have been formally rescinded as an unconstitu- 
 tional Act. The same course, we believe, would have 
 been followed with other important subjects, which 
 that Assembly so summarily settled. The same results 
 would have been arrived at in the case of the Veto, the 
 Strathbogie brethren, and the Chapel ministers, but 
 hey would have been reached in what many would 
 have considered a more constitutional way, and the 
 dangerous precedent would have been avoided of an 
 Assembly assuming the power of declaring any Act of 
 a preceding Assembly to have been from the beginning 
 a nullity, simply on the ground that the Act had been 
 afterwards discovered or declared to be unconstitu- 
 tional and illegal. Such a proceeding might easily be 
 
368 SUCCEEDING ASSEMBLIES. 
 
 stretched into a precedent fraught with mischievous 
 consequences. An Assembly may, in the exercise of 
 its own judgment, independently of the judgment of 
 any civil court, find some Act of a former General As- 
 sembly unconstitutional; and if, on that ground, it 
 may be declared to have been from the beginning a 
 nullity, all the proceedings resulting from and con- 
 nected with it are overturned, and inextricable confu- 
 sion must ensue. These were the views of several in 
 the Assembly. 
 
 There were also many throughout the Church who, 
 on the questions referred to, held sentiments different 
 from those which the majority of that Assembly enter- 
 tained — so many that an Assembly fairly representing 
 the views of the Church might possibly have followed 
 a different course. Even they, however, acquiesced, 
 without a murmur, in the proceedings of the Supreme 
 Court. They felt that, if the constitution of that 
 Assembly was somewhat anomalous, its position and 
 circumstances were equally so ; and, while they grate- 
 fully acknowledged the goodness of the Church's great 
 Head in vouchsafing that wisdom which, in a season of 
 unparalleled trial, guided her counsels so that her chief 
 difficulties were overcome, they refused to allow any 
 differences, short of those involving substantial prin- 
 ciple, to invade that unity of spirit and of effort which, 
 at the time, was, above all things, essential to her well- 
 beino;. Succeedino- Assemblies have shewn the true 
 spirit of the Church — in a determination, amounting 
 almost to severity, to uphold the purity of discipline 
 
SUCCEEDING ASSEMBLIES. 369 
 
 and of the faith — in a zeal to maintain in their full 
 efficiency, and to increase, those noble schemes of Chris- 
 tian enterprise which the shock of the great secession 
 had threatened to destro}^ — and in that Christian and 
 brotherly love, which, even amidst diversity of senti- 
 ment in matters of detail, and the free discussion of 
 every subject which the business of her courts em- 
 braces, modifies the tendency to fiery disputation, 
 which, alas ! too frequently has characterised the dis- 
 cussions and lessened the real influence of courts eccle- 
 siastical. If these be the characteristics of "Eras- 
 tianism" and " Moderatism," confessedly the Church 
 of Scotland is both Erastian and Moderate. But if 
 by these words, employed as terms of reproach, it be 
 meant to insinuate that she has put her "standards, 
 acts, and laws into the hands of the civil court," or 
 even that she has returned to the policy which is sup- 
 posed to have characterised the period generally re- 
 ferred to as the ^* reign of Moderatism " — not her pro- 
 fessions only, but her whole proceedings, rebut the 
 charge. She is Erastian only in so far as she refuses 
 to acknowledge the principle of Voluntaryism, and 
 Moderate only in so far as she clings to her own consti- 
 tution as something fixed and determined, and not 
 admitting, either as to her creed or polity, of change 
 and adjustment according to the fluctuating opinions of 
 men engaged in party strife. Party names, whether in 
 the political or ecclesiastical world, may be upheld 
 long after the circumstances and policy which gave rise 
 
 to them have passed away. They may be upheld by 
 
 2 A 
 
370 queen's letter. 
 
 struggling controversialists, to lure the unwary or to 
 alarm the ignorant, long after they have ceased to in- 
 dicate the views of those to whom they are applied ; 
 but men are beginning now to look to principles and 
 conduct rather than to titles, whether assumed or im- 
 posed ; and the more that they do so, just the less will 
 they be swayed by the trickery which was wont to 
 alarm them with the bugbears of unwelcome names. 
 
 An expectation had been entertained that, in her 
 Majesty's letter to the Assembly of 1843, allusion 
 would be made to the peculiar circumstances of the 
 Church, and some indication given of a measure which 
 it was confidently believed by many would be intro- 
 duced into Parliament for the extrication of the Church 
 from her pressing difficulties, and for securing the 
 rights of the people in connexion with the settlement 
 of ministers. That expectation was not disappointed. 
 The subject was introduced in terms as explicit as 
 could be looked for in such a communication. " The 
 Church of Scotland," said the royal letter, "occupy- 
 ing its true position in friendly alliance with the State, 
 is justly entitled to expect the aid of Parliament in re- 
 moving any doubts which may have arisen with respect 
 to the right construction of the statutes relating to the 
 admission of ministers. You may safely confide in the 
 wisdom of Parliament, and we shall readily give our 
 assent to any measure which the legislature may pass, 
 for the purpose of securing to the people the full privi- 
 lege of objection, and to the Church judicatories the 
 exclusive right of judgment." 
 
ITS INDICATION DISLIKED BY SOME. 371 
 
 Before her Majesty's letter had been opened, and 
 before the Assembly had been constitutedj the seceders, 
 as we have seen, had left the House. By them, therefore, 
 the communication was not likely to be viewed in any 
 very favourable light. The leaders were well assured 
 that the concession of their high independence-claims 
 never would be made ; and this withheld, no measure 
 of Non-intrusion, however ample, would satisfy them. 
 
 There were also, within the Assembly, some to 
 whom the communication was anything but acceptable. 
 They deprecated all legislative interference, satisfied 
 w-ith the law as it now stood, and as interpreted by the 
 civil tribunals. Perhaps it was not to be wondered at, 
 that, in the hour of victory, they should have been in- 
 clined to resist all concession to those principles for 
 which, in an exaggerated and unconstitutional form, 
 their opponents had contended, and to cling to that 
 law which, when read, if not simply in the light of 
 those decisions which had been lately given, at least in 
 the light of some of the dicta which accompanied them, 
 seemed to many to leave no standing for the people 
 in the matter of the induction of ministers, and to give 
 no security for the old and constitutional principle of 
 Non-intrusion. To all who valued that principle, and 
 who longed to see the true rights of the people acknow- 
 ledged and secured, the intimation in her Majesty's 
 letter was most welcome. To those who w^ished the 
 people's right of objection to be confined simply to 
 points affecting the life, doctrine, and literature of a 
 presentee, the intimation was distasteful. " It was well 
 
372 SOME OPPOSE LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE. 
 
 known," says Dr. Bryce, " that the Moderate party in 
 the Church, although at one time friendly to Paiiia- 
 mentary interference, had strongly opposed any legis- 
 lation whatever at the particular junction wliich affairs 
 had now reached. The courts of law had been per- 
 mitted, without let or hindrance from Parliament, to 
 expiscate the doubtful points that had arisen between 
 the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions in Scotland ; 
 and whether this had, or had not, been the most expe- 
 dient course to have pursued, it appeared to many that 
 tlie necessity of any interference of the legislature had, 
 
 by this time at least, been so far superseded 
 
 It was therefore to be expected that the Assembly, 
 now almost entirely composed of the Moderate party, 
 would respond to this intimation from the throne, that, 
 while they respectfully and dutifully appreciated her 
 Majesty's regard and interest in the welfare of the 
 Church of Scotland, they trusted that the interposition 
 of the legislature would not be required to restore, her 
 peace and efficiency." * 
 
 Notwithstanding the prevalence of tlicsc views, 
 which, according to Dr. Bryce, " it was well known the 
 Moderate party entertained," the Assembly, in reply to 
 the royal communication, "conveyed an opinion, that 
 it was desirable, on all grounds, that the state of the 
 law concerning the settlement of ministers should be 
 fixed with as little delay as possible." The Committee 
 appointed by the Assembly gave in a report to this 
 effect — " a report," says Dr. Bryce, " which it is not 
 
 * Vol. ii., pp. 396, 397. 
 
ASSEMBLY HAILS THE PEOSPECT. 373 
 
 very easy to reconcile with the ground previously taken 
 up by the Moderate and Constitutional party, that the 
 law had been duly and fully expiscated, and all doubts 
 regarding it removed. On this report being brought 
 up, the Assembly, without discussion, which it was 
 deemed advisable to avoid, adopted the suggestion of 
 the Committee — several members intimating, what in- 
 deed seemed unnecessary, that, in expressing confi- 
 dence in the intentions of her Majesty's Government, 
 the Church did not commit herself to an approval of 
 any measure which they might think fit to bring for- 
 ward, should legislation be determined on, or compro- 
 mise her rio^ht to be consulted in all nuatters affectintr 
 her welfare." * 
 
 No sooner had the answer of the Assembly to the 
 royal communication been returned, than steps were 
 taken to redeem, without delay, the royal pledge which 
 that communication conveyed. The Earl of Aberdeen 
 ofave immediate notice of his intended measure — a 
 measure which, in spite of most determined opposition, 
 ere long received the approval of the legislature — a 
 measure which revived and ratified the rights of parishes, 
 and under which the people are secured in the posses- 
 sion of privileges, which, if not all that could be de- 
 sired, may yet be confidently asserted to be to the full 
 as great as were ever secured to them in any period of 
 the history of the Church of Scotland. It is true that, 
 but for the efforts made by the inventors of the Veto 
 to stem the current which was threatening to sweep 
 
 * Vol. ii., p. 398. 
 
374 SCOTCH BENEFICES ACT OF 1843. 
 
 patroKage altogether away, the people might have had 
 vested in them the full right of election ; but the chal- 
 lenge may be freely given, to point to the period in the 
 history of our Church in which they possessed a legal 
 title to privileges in any respect greater than they 
 now enjoy, and have enjoyed since the passing of the 
 Scotch Benefices Act in 1843. 
 
 To what the people's ancient constitutional privileges 
 amounted, we have already shewn. They had a right 
 to insist that no man should be intruded on them as a 
 pastor, against whom any good cause of exception could 
 be produced. They had a right to state their objec- 
 tions to any presentee, and to insist that these objec- 
 tions should be duly weighed and acted on. In this 
 sense, the constitution of the Church clearly provided 
 for non-intrusion. But, that a measure such as that 
 now introduced b)?" Lord Aberdeen had become neces- 
 sary, for the establishment of these rights on a firm and 
 permanent basis, was obvious, not only from the fact 
 that these rights had so long been practically disre- 
 garded, that with many the existence of them was held 
 to be a matter of doubt ; but also because, from the 
 authoritative statements made by many members of the 
 supreme civil court, it wns obvious that, if insisted on, 
 the exercise of these rights would be opposed, and might 
 be ruthlessly overborne. 
 
 It sounded well enouo^h to insist on the rioht of Pres- 
 byteries to receive, at another stage, and to adjudicate 
 upon, objections of any kind made to presentees ; but 
 the speeches of noble and learned lords had rendered it 
 
SOME SUCH MEASURE NECESSARY. 375 
 
 doubtful whether now that right might not be chal- 
 lenged, should it be put forth, as a covert to what might 
 practically be regarded as a special exercise of the Veto 
 — whether, in such a case, the Church could safely, and 
 without challenge, fall back upon her privileges as se- 
 cured by the Act 1567. 
 
 There are few who will gainsay the statement of Sir 
 George Clerk, in the Assembly 1840, that, for fifty 
 years before the passing of the Veto Law, the right of 
 objection on the part of parishioners had practically be- 
 come a nullity. The remark of Dr. Bryce, in rebutting 
 the statement, is only confirmatory of its truth — viz., 
 " The people had, in every instance, been called upon 
 at the induction of the presentee, to come forward and 
 state any objections ; but since effect had been given to 
 the presentation — however slenderly signed might be 
 the call — the people had not appeared at the subsequent 
 stage." * Then, the authoritative statements made, both 
 in delivering judgment in the Auchterarder case and on 
 other occasions, are most distinct, and so well known that 
 quotation is almost unrequired. Lord Campbell, in 
 movino^ his series of resolutions in the House of Lords, 
 explicitly declared that, in his opinion, objections as to 
 the suitableness of a presentee were not competent, and 
 that, under the late decisions, the question could not be 
 raised, " Is he suitable for this particular parish ? " — but, 
 " Is he quahfied in learning, morals, and orthodoxy ? " 
 Lord Cottenham was not less explicit. " The Church," 
 he said, " was bound to admit the qualified presentee of 
 
 * Vol. ii., p. 16. 
 
376 SOME OPPOSE THE MEASURE. 
 
 the patron, and the same law had declared what qiiali 
 fication was — namely, sufficiency of literature, ortho- 
 doxy of doctrine, and morality of life. He nowhere 
 found suitableness referred to." 
 
 Nothing, therefore, can be more obvious than the ur- 
 gent necessity of some such measure as that now intro- 
 duced by the Earl of Aberdeen, unless the Church w^ere 
 prepared to abandon altogether the rights of the people 
 as to the suitableness and acceptability of presentees. 
 The bill, however, was strenuously opposed by a few 
 of the Moderate party in the Church. They w^ere op- 
 posed to all legislation. They wished matters to remnin 
 just as they were. Communications, it appears, were 
 made to her Majesty's Government by the leading mem- 
 bers of the party to the effect, that such a measure, by 
 inducinii: ministers who had been attached to the Non- 
 intrusion party to remain in the Church, would have 
 the effect of alienating many of the people who were in 
 a state of suspense, but who would " forsake the ministry 
 of men whom, under a change that would appear so ob- 
 viously interested, they might no longer be able to re- 
 spect or esteem." * 
 
 Besides objections to the measure, as too popular in 
 its provisions, and investing the Church courts with too 
 ample discretionary power, another reason may, perhaps 
 unconsciously to themselves, have had its influence in 
 increasing their opposition to the Benifices Act. They 
 had been, to a very great extent, overlooked in the 
 whole matter. The earlier negotiations had been con- 
 
 * Bryce, vol. ii., pp. 400, 401. 
 
KEASONS WHY OPPOSED. 377 
 
 ducted between the Government on the one hand, and 
 the Non-intrusion leaders on the other, too much, per- 
 haps, to the neglect of what was distinguished as the 
 Moderate * section of the Church. More lately the ne- 
 gotiations had been carried on with what Dr. Bryce 
 characterises as the " Middle Party " — a party now nu- 
 merous and influential, and comprising all those who 
 
 * Here and elsewhere we use the term " Moderate " in no offensive sense. 
 In alluding to past events the term cannot well be avoided, though happily 
 the need of such party distinctions has now wellnigh ceased. It was 
 fashionable at one time to refer to the period of what was characterised as 
 " the reign of Moderatism," as a period of utter deadness induced by that 
 oppressive incubus. Frightful pictures Avere presented of the then con- 
 dition of our Zion, and it became convenient and very useful to identify 
 the Moderatism of the present and the Moderatism of the past, burdened as 
 the latter was supposed to be with all that had been reprehensible in the 
 circumstances of the Church. The testimony of Sir H. Moncrieff was for- 
 gotten, who, speaking of this matter in his " Constitution of the Church of 
 Scotland," p. 97, says, "That there are parties still, is unquestionably true. 
 But it would not be easy for the zealots of either side to state clearly or in- 
 telligibly, to impartial spectators, the precise points on which the party 
 distinctions now turn." Forgotten was the honourable name which, during 
 that very period, Scotland and Scotchmen had attained — when, if there was 
 less of zeal, there was at least not less of acknowledged honesty and upright- 
 ness, and Scotchmen were everywhere preferred to places of trust. It was 
 forgotten that, when a spirit of greater zeal succeeded, men of that party 
 were not the last to receive the hallowed influence, as is testified by the 
 Church's noblest and most successful schemes ; for to men of that party we 
 owe the Education and Colonial Schemes, and that for the Propagation of 
 the Gospel in Foreign Parts. These things it became convenient for the 
 while to overlook. "But," to use the words of Dr. Wilson, a man of libe- 
 ral mind, though on principle opposed to the polic}' of the party, " there is 
 no reason why we should throw into the shade that pastoral care of the 
 Moderate party to which the country owes very much ; or why Ave should 
 depreciate their personal excellences; or why we should be ungrateful for 
 their ministrations, or refuse to hold in grateful remembrance the names of 
 the men who accumulated those stores of scriptural knoAvledge, from which 
 we ourselves have derived so many facilities for professional attainments. 
 Manj', very man}*, are the names enrolled in the list of the Moderate party, 
 who ought to be venerated as studious, learned, and pious persons, to whom 
 the Church owes a debt of gratitude Avhich she can never fully pay." — Claims 
 of the Free Church Examined, p Qb. 
 
378 BILL OF MIDDLE PARTY. 
 
 refused concurrence with the extremes on either side — 
 who upheld the true doctrine of spiritual independence 
 as expounded by the fathers and embodied in the stan- 
 dards of the Church, while they repudiated the now 
 developed notions of the modern school — and who were 
 anxious to protect the valued rights of the Christian 
 people. 
 
 It was with this party, designated by Lord Aberdeen 
 as " the great body of the clergy," and by Dr. Bryce 
 as " a small and influential section," that these nego- 
 tiations were transacted. The measure was conceded 
 to them, in opposition to the express wishes of the ex- 
 treme Moderate party, who had intimated again and 
 again their opinion, that "legislation had become at 
 least unnecessary, if not highly inexpedient." To adopt 
 the statement of Dr. Bryce, "Whatever may be the 
 merits or demerits of the Scotch Benefices Act, it be- 
 longs of right to a middle party." 
 
 In these circumstances it was not perhaps much to 
 be wondered at that the measure should meet with 
 that strenuous opposition which these parties did not 
 withhold. They cannot perhaps be blamed for acting 
 as they did ; and even those who did not sympathise 
 with their efforts will concede to these efforts the merit 
 of consistency. They had gained a triumph. At 
 every step they had been victorious in the courts of 
 law. It could not be agreeable to have the fruits of 
 that triumph wrested from them by legislative inter- 
 ference. They had, at every movement, defeated the 
 outgoing party, and now in their turn they were to be 
 
APPROVED BY PRESBYTERY OF EDINBURGH. 379 
 
 defeated by the "middle men." It is very much to 
 this cause that we ascribe the occasional uneasiness 
 manifested by Dr. Bryce when his subject leads him to 
 notice that party — an uneasiness indeed by no means 
 astonishing in the circumstances, but which never- 
 theless we regret to detect so often in a work charac- 
 terised by so much ability, and candour, and manly 
 independence. 
 
 An attempt was made to induce the Presbytery of 
 Edinburgh " to adopt resolutions inimical to that pro- 
 vision of the bill which gave to Presbyteries the right 
 to regard the circumstances of the parish, and the 
 number and character of the objectors, as elements in 
 the judicial disposal of the objections that might be 
 oiFered to the presentee ; and which, it was alleged, 
 really amounted to the liherum arbitrium, against which 
 the Moderate party had so often and so strongly pro- 
 tested." The chief exception was taken to the powers 
 vested in the Church courts to " have regard to the 
 whole circumstances of the parish " — " to the spiritual 
 welfare and edification of the congregation " — and espe- 
 cially to " the number and character of the objectors." 
 These provisions were objected to by Dr. Bryce, as 
 opening the door " to proceedings of an arbitrary 
 nature." * 
 
 * This may possibly be the case. But surely the Act 1567, as under- 
 stood by Dr. Bryce himself, is open to the same objection. "After the 
 presentee has been admitted to trials, the Presbytery may, imder the Act 
 1567, refuse to induct, for any reason they may see Jit.'" — Vol. i., part ii., 
 p. SO. And again, 'The same law which compelled Presbyteries to act 
 ministerially in going on to trials, gave to them, after trials taken, the 
 most unrestrained judicial powers in disposing of the presentee ; and the 
 
380 APPROVED OF BY COMMISSION. 
 
 This endeavour, however, altogether failed. " The 
 attempt to obtain an alteration on this part of the bill 
 was defeated within the Presbytery by an almost 
 unanimous rejection of the resolutions." * 
 
 A similar attempt was made at the meeting of the 
 Assembly's Commission in August, and was followed 
 by a similar result. Intimation having been made by 
 Sir James Graham that the bill would not be passed 
 until the mind of the Church, through the Commission, 
 should be known, the attendance of members was un- 
 usually large. On the motion of Principal Haldane, 
 the bill was cordially approved of. 
 
 After not a little opposition in both Houses of Parlia- 
 ment, this important measure was passed. It is now 
 the law which regulates Presbyteries in the initiatory 
 stage of taking a presentee on trials. The Church has 
 in general had but little difficulty in accommodating her 
 proceedino^s to its provisions. To the people it con- 
 cedes unlimited right of stating objections of whatever 
 kind — a right of which, when necessary, they have 
 shewn neither unwillingness nor inability to avail 
 themselves. To the Presbytery it secures the right of un- 
 
 very ground, that the presentee had been dissented from by a certain pro- 
 portion of the congregation, of a certain character and description, although 
 unaVjle legally to sustain the Presbytery in refusing to take him on trials, 
 might, for anything decided up to the perlnd of the Secession in 1843, have 
 supported their rejection in the ej'e of the civil law, however well qualified 
 they might have found him in life, literature, and doctrine." — P. 22 There 
 surely must therefore have been some reason besides this for the oppo- 
 sition manifested; and moreover, according to these views, as far as the 
 powers of the Presbytery are concerned, the " bill " wai>, after all, simply 
 " declaratory." 
 * liryce, vol. ii., p. 402. 
 
ITS PROVISIONS. 381 
 
 fettered judgment and of acting according to their own 
 conscientious views, interfering in no respect with any 
 powers and privileges independently possessed. And, 
 while it does not profess to secure the abstract principle 
 of JN'on-intrusion, in the sense which was at one time 
 adopted, and at another abandoned by those who made 
 the term their watchword, it is fitted practically to se- 
 cure it in the sense in which it is chiefly valuable — the 
 sense in which, as we have already seen, it is embodied 
 in our standards, and was held from the first by our own 
 and by all the other cognate Churches of the Reforma- 
 tion. It provides against the intrusion of unacceptable 
 and unsuitable presentees more effectually than did the 
 Yeto. While, as a declaratory measure, it has removed 
 doubts which, in the lapse of years, had been permitted 
 to gather around the people's rights in connexion with 
 the appointment of ministers, it is founded upon, and, so 
 far as the rights of the people go, is in strict conformity 
 with the j)rovisions of the Kevoiution Settlement — that 
 settlement upon which the Church, as at present esta- 
 blished, rests. 
 
 C^ne can easily understand how those who, like the 
 Reformed Presbvterians or Cameronians, conscienti- 
 ously object to the whole Revolution Settlement as es- 
 sentially Erastian, should also object to the provisions of 
 Aberdeen's bill ; but it is difficult to perceive on whar 
 good grounds any should affect to repudiate it, who, at 
 the same time, glory in the provisions of the Act of 
 1690. That Act is the charter of the Church of Scot- 
 land — the charter by which, when crippled, and wasted. 
 
382 REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT. 
 
 and disorganised by persecution, it was, at the Revolu- 
 tion, taken anew under the protection of the State — re- 
 organised and re-established. That statute re-enacted 
 the Act 1592, the ancient charter of the Presbyterian 
 Church, reserving, however, for reconsideration, the 
 part of that Act relating to patronage. This considera- 
 tion was not long delayed. In the same session of Par- 
 liament the subject was taken up, and patronage, in- 
 stead of being vested, as in 1592, in a single patron, 
 was conferred upon the heritors and elders of each 
 parish. But what standing was given to the people? 
 Plow were they secured against intrusion ? Precisely 
 as by the bill of Lord Aberdeen. Says the Act 1690, 
 " The heritors of the parish being Protestants, and the 
 elders, are to name and propose the person to the whole 
 congregation, to be either approven or disapproven by 
 them; and, if they disapprove, that the disapprovers 
 give in their reasons, to the effect the affair may be 
 cognosced upon by the Presbytery, at whose judgment 
 and by whose determination the calling and entering 
 of a particular minister is to be ordered and concluded." 
 Now, this is precisely the provision of the present law. 
 But, as doubts had been thrown out as to whether the 
 reasons to be given in might include anything beyond 
 life, doctrine, and literature, the law explicitly declares 
 that, instead of being so restricted, " if any one or more 
 male parishioners being of full age have any objection 
 of any kind to the individual so presented, or any rea- 
 son to state against his settlement in that parish, and 
 against his gifts and qualities for the cure of the said 
 
PRESENT LAW, 383 
 
 parish," these objections "of any kind" are to be re- 
 ceived and to be fully considered by the Presbytery. 
 The Presbytery, moreover, is to be entitled " to have 
 reo^ard to the whole circumstances and condition of the 
 parish — to the spiritual welfare and edification of the 
 people, and to the character and number of the persons 
 by whom the said objections or reasons shall be pre- 
 ferred." * And whereas the Act 1690, if strictly in- 
 terpreted, might seem to be an invasion on the Presby- 
 terian polity, preventing, in such cases, appeals to the 
 higher courts of the Church, and thus restrictino; the 
 rights alike of presentees and people by ordaining that 
 the calling and entry of a particular minister should be 
 "ordered and concluded" by the Presbytery of the 
 bounds ; the Act of Aberdeen provides that it shall be 
 in the power of all parties to appeal from any deliver- 
 ance by the said Presbytery, acting within its compe- 
 tency as a judicatory of the Church, "which appeal 
 shall lie exclusively to the superior ecclesiastical courts, 
 according; to the forms and o-overnment of the Church 
 of Scotland as by law established."' 
 
 Such are the provisions of this declaratory Act, in- 
 troduced from the best and highest motives by the 
 nobleman with whose name it is uniformly connected, 
 and who, with reference to those w^hom it was obviously 
 
 * In Aberdeen's bill of 1841, these proA'isions were made in a parentheti- 
 cal form. To this form strong exception was taken by the advisers of the 
 movement party who seemed to consider the clauses as most important, but 
 to regard them as deceptive and illusory, because parenthetically introduced. 
 In the measure as introduced and passed in 1843, they appear, not as a pa- 
 renthetical clause, but in the form of distinct and positiye enactment. 
 
o 
 
 84: PRESENT LAW. 
 
 his sincere desire to benefit, might well have adopted 
 the Scripture proverb, " We have piped unto you, and 
 ye have not danced ; we have mourned to you, and ye 
 have not wept." However short of what many in the 
 Church would desire, it does practically secure the 
 Non-intrusion contended for during the conflict, to a 
 much greater extent than did the Veto law. It gives 
 effect to the ancient Non-intrusion of the Church of 
 Scotland.* Chancres in the circumstances of the coun- 
 
 * The Benefices Act should he considered hy itself, apart from the regu- 
 lations framed by the Church for its practical working. To the Church 
 courts the Act gives most ample powers — so ample, indeed, as to admit of 
 their so conducting the process connected with induction as to allow, in 
 some cases, of what some would con.sider an invasion of the people's rights 
 — a thwarting of their not unreasonable wishes. If, under the Act, any 
 such cases have occurred, they are to be traced not to a penury, but rather 
 to an excess, of power in the Church courts. Tlie Church has ample power 
 to prevent intrusion. IMore than tliis, the Church, since the Secession of 
 1843, has, under the present Act, prevented intrusion. Out of the nume- 
 rous cases of disputed settlements which, since that period, have occurred, 
 even her most jealous opponents can point to only a verj' few, and these 
 confessedly of a peculiar kind, in which there has been so much as even any 
 appearance of thwarting tlie people's reasonable will. Under Avhnt conceiv- 
 able system will such cases be rendered impossible ? To Avhat period in the 
 history of the Church can any one refer in which, under whatever system, 
 fewer of such exceptional cases, in the same length of time, have occurred ? 
 Did they not occur under the Veto ? Have tliey not occurred in the Free 
 Church? In what other Church, or in what other period, have so many 
 inductions taken place with so few cases of dissatisfaction felt or expressed 
 on the part of congregations or parishes ? That the Assembly's regulations 
 may be much improved and simplified— that they might be so framed as to 
 provide for giving more prominence and value to the caU, in having " re- 
 gard to the whole circumstances and condition of the parish " — few Avill 
 deny. That even a more liberal Act might be obtained many are per- 
 suaded; but that, with anj'regulations, or under any system, no cases of 
 dissatisfaction will ever occur, is more than any reasonable man will ven- 
 ture to expect. But for the Non-intruhion movement, Church patronage 
 miglit, long ere this, have been abolished; yet who will say that, had it 
 been so, there would have been fewer disputes, or fewer cases of dissatis- 
 faction felt? 
 
A CHANGE MAY BECOME EXPEDIENT. 385 
 
 try, the spread of intelligence among the various classes 
 of the community, and the operation of many other 
 causes, may be rendering both expedient and necessary 
 measures of a more liberal cast than those which suited 
 the circumstances of a bygone age. The day, perhaps, 
 may not be distant, when all may see the propriety of 
 uniting to obtain those privileges connected with the 
 election of ministers, for which so many, in every period, 
 have contended. Meanwhile, however, under the exist- 
 ing measure, the ancient privileges of the people, as 
 by law secured to them, are not abridged, but ratified 
 and practically enlarged. Nay, so thoroughly have the 
 benefits of this measure been appreciated, that, in 
 almost every district of the country, persons — and 
 these not a few — who had been driven from our com- 
 munion by the allegation that the Church of Scotland 
 had abandoned her great principle, have been quietly, 
 from time to time, returning to the fold from which 
 they had been led astray. Certainly the measure does 
 not infringe upon the rights of Church courts. We 
 might quote the opinions of men learned in the law, 
 both civil and ecclesiastical, to the efiTect that, in their 
 apprehension, it not only protects effectually the peo- 
 ple's rights, as opposed to those of patronage, but 
 secures the courts of the Church in authority only too 
 nearly approximating to that arbitrary power, which 
 experience has shewn to be, especially in the hands of 
 churchmen, not unapt to become an engine of tyranny. 
 Our narrative has now been brouoht down to the 
 
 period of the much-to-be-deplored Secession of 1843. 
 
 2 B 
 
386 author's endeavour. 
 
 I had designed to extend it a little further, presenting 
 a sketch of the history of the two Churches since that 
 memorable event. Already, however, the limits are 
 exceeded to which I wished this volume to be confined. 
 As much as possible, I have restricted myself to the 
 examination of principles, and the statement of facts 
 connected with the periods which the subject I had 
 proposed to myself has led me to review. Whether I 
 have been successful, others will determine. I have 
 endeavoured, unbiassed by party influence, to narrate 
 the truth. My maxim has been, "Tros Tyriusque 
 mihi nuUo discrimine agetur." In adverting to the early 
 history of our Church, I have not shrunk from the un- 
 welcome duty of pointing out errors, even on the part of 
 those to whose character and efforts we all look back with 
 feelings of just exultation. I have done the same with 
 reference to our seceding brethren of the present day, 
 in whom, while many of the same virtues conspicuously 
 shine, the same or kindred errors have been manifested. 
 I have done the same with respect to those within the 
 Church, believing, as I do, that, during the great con- 
 flict, none were wholly free of blame, and that, when we 
 call to mind the memory of the recent past, we all have 
 reason to humble ourselves before God, for our share, 
 immediate or more remote, in the causes of that calamity 
 which the Lord permitted to fall upon our Church. 
 
 I have tried to avoid giving unnecessary offence. 
 That I have succeeded in doing so is perhaps more than 
 I can hope. An occasional rash or offensive expres- 
 sion, perhaps, may have escaped me. My conscience 
 
TENDENCIES. 387 
 
 absolves me from the charge of wilful misrepresentation. 
 If I have expressed myself strongly respecting the bre- 
 thren who have left our communion, it is because I be- 
 lieve them to be in error. As men, and as Christian 
 men, I love them. To many of them I am attached by 
 the ties of sincere friendship, but of some of their prin- 
 ciples my conscience forbids me to approve. Their ef- 
 forts in the cause of our common faith, the whole Chris- 
 tian world admires. Prejudice has not blinded me to 
 their many noble virtues. That there are many among 
 them who still cherish attachment to the Church of 
 their fathers, I am well assured. With all her faults 
 they love her still. Principles, however, are maintained 
 by many of them, the full development of which must 
 issue in hostility to all Establishments. The abstract 
 principle of Establishments cannot continue to be main- 
 tained along with views which, in the apprehension of 
 all except themselves, render that principle impractic- 
 able, and in connexion with a system, the very existence 
 of which requires the constant exertion of all the ener- 
 gies and appliances of Voluntaryism. Those who reject, 
 as impious, all State control in matters of religion — who 
 deny that, in any case, members of Church courts may 
 be coerced by the civil power with respect to the exercise 
 of ecclesiastical functions — have already more than half 
 adopted the Voluntary theory. The tendency is clearly 
 in this direction. Past experience points to this as, at 
 no distant period, the probable result. Those seceding 
 bodies w^hich have adopted the Voluntary, as opposed 
 to the Establishment, principle, were, at the period of 
 
388 TAYLOR'S PICTURE OF VOLUNTARYISM. 
 
 their secessions, quite as firmly attached to the latter 
 as the members of the late secession profess now to be. 
 Were they to succeed in that object which some of 
 them have not hesitated to avow — viz., the destruction 
 of the Church as by law established — the ultimate con- 
 sequences might be of a most appalling kind. A body, 
 formidable in numbers, powerful in resources, and pos- 
 sessing such influence over the mass of their adherents, 
 would aflbrd scope for the full development of Volun- 
 taryism, such as, since the Reformation, this country 
 has never witnessed. Whether the germ may not al- 
 ready be detected of that development to which the 
 celebrated author of the " Natural History of Enthu- 
 siasm " points, in the following passages of his work on 
 "Spiritual Despotism," each one may judge for himself: 
 " If we wish," says Taylor, " to see what is now vaunt- 
 ingly termed the Voluntary principle fully evolved and 
 ripened under a summer heat, we have only to turn to 
 the Papacy. . . . What has happened once may happen 
 again, and will do so under like circumstances. We need 
 not draw upon imagination in conceiving of the natural 
 course of events, and the operation of common prin- 
 ciples. The Church, we may suppose, instead of being 
 befriended by the State, is barely tolerated, or perhaps 
 oppressed. The clerical body, including, as it may, many 
 high-minded and disintereted individuals, is yet, as a 
 body (what body is not?), actuated by the ordinary 
 motives of our nature, and tends therefore, with a steady 
 and silent momentum, towards its corporate aggrandise- 
 ment — its wealth, its ease, its credit, and its secure en- 
 
VOLUNTAEYISM. 389 
 
 joyment of special prerogatives. Every corporation 
 shifts itself, if it be possible, from precarious ground, 
 and moves towards that which is firm. If, then, the 
 State does not lend its aid in this endeavour of the 
 clergy to substantiate their honours and revenues, a 
 resource will be found of another sort, and the minds 
 of the people will be worked upon with proportionate 
 eagerness, in order to make sure of their subserviency. 
 Exaggerated doctrines loill supply the place of legal pro- 
 visions. . . . The claims of God^s ministers ivill he asserted 
 in a hyperbolic yet insidious style. The merit of the offer- 
 ing laid upon the altar of the Church will be overrated in 
 a manner that at once enfeebles morality and corrupts doc- 
 trine. Genuine virtue will be made to give way to 
 fictitious virtue. The just symmetry or relative magni- 
 tude of duties will be enormously distorted. . . . And 
 yet all this while there is no compulsion, there is no tax- 
 gatherer or farmer of tithes — no State alliance. The 
 Voluntary princij^le is in its full triumphant course. 
 Nevertheless, a system of spiritual despotism, as cruel as 
 it is foul, is fastening on the necks of the people.''^ 
 
 55 * 
 
 * Spiritual Despotism, p. 54. Somewhat of the same sentiment was ahly 
 brought out by the Rev. James (now Professor) Gibson, in his essay on the 
 principle of Voluntary Churches. "While mankind," says Mr. Gibson, 
 "are in an imperfect state, and selfishness may successfully practise upon 
 ignorance, it is not safe to leave so large a body as the clergy to pursue their 
 own objects, either of wealth or ambition, witiiout admitting any State re- 
 gulation ; and therefore the Voluntary principle, being a principle of entire 
 independence of civil interference, even to prevent the undue wealth and 
 power of the Church, if acquired from any other source than the State itself, 
 which is in truth the Popish principle, is dangerous ; for while the abuses of 
 the Establi.-hment principle admit of national correction, the evils of the 
 Voluntary system, which are inherent in human nature, do not ; because it 
 rejects all external interference, itself having no power whatever to preserve 
 
390 CHURCH UNCHANGED. 
 
 But while the direct tendency of the principles held 
 by many of our seceding brethren is to the adoption of 
 the Voluntary theory, the Establishment principle is 
 still professed by them as a Church ; and among them 
 there are not a few, who not only hold the principle in 
 all its integrity, but who still regard that Church which 
 they have forsaken, with affection, and recall their 
 separation with regret. And may not the hope be 
 entertained of a reunion between brethren thus so 
 cruelly estranged? There are, no doubt, in the way 
 practical difficulties of many various kinds ; and that 
 same influence, it is to be feared, which so skilfully 
 abetted the separation, might meanwhile operate not 
 less skilfully to prevent reunion. So long, however, as 
 the Establishment principle is professed, the precious 
 hope need never be abandoned. The Church of Scot- 
 land professes now the very doctrines which she has 
 ever held. She possesses, as we have seen, the same 
 privileges which she enjoyed of old. Her discipline is 
 unaltered. Her liberties are unbroken. Her legitimate 
 privileges are untouched. The rights of her people are 
 unim])aired — nay, practically enlarged and secured, to 
 an extent not previously acknowledged. If she still 
 requires a yet more ample infusion of the popular 
 element, the way towards its attainment is as patent as 
 ever, and, after such a union, would offer a prospect of 
 success not less hopeful than was that of the old anti- 
 
 the purity or keep down the ambition of churchmen." — The Principle of 
 
 Voluntary Churches^ and not the Principle of an Establishment, jyroved to he 
 the real source of Romish and Priestly Domination^ 1833 ; p. 90. 
 
MAT WE HOPE FOR REUNION? 391 
 
 patronage movement, which was crushed by the origin- 
 ators of the Veto law. 
 
 Such an union, however, never could be effected on 
 such terms as would imply a recognition of what are 
 understood to be the full claims of the modern school. 
 The nation would not tolerate the investing of a body 
 so influential with powers so arbitrary and privileges so 
 uncontrolled. If rendered independent of such inter- 
 ference as might be necessary to keep her to the terms 
 of the compact, and to restrain her within her own 
 proper and defined jurisdiction, past experience de- 
 clares that such a Church would stop at no point short 
 of the full exercise of spiritual despotism. She might 
 then adjust at will " alike her creed and her admin- 
 istration," and means would not be awanting to induce 
 compliance, how often soever that adjustment might be 
 deemed expedient. Another "golden period" would 
 be aimed at, and, under such a system, might soon be 
 reached. Dissent miorht still be tolerated— but tolerated 
 under the Church's frown. And ere long, either the 
 despotism would be established, or the Church would 
 be cast off by an indignant people as a " moral nuisance," 
 under which a free nation would not suffer itself to be 
 oppressed. 
 
 But why should such claims continue to be insisted 
 on ? Why should demands be made of a nature so 
 subtile that, even on the showing of those who made 
 them, they were, on every occasion, misunderstood by 
 those to whom they were addressed ? or of a nature so 
 dangerous, as understood by all except themselves, as 
 
392 CHUECH OF SCOTLAND FREE. 
 
 to have been rejected by all to whom their appeal was 
 made, as inconsistent with civil freedom ? Why insist, 
 as essential to the very being of a true Church, on 
 claims confessedly unknown to every other Church of 
 the Reformation ? 
 
 If the brief historical survey which has been made in 
 the preceding pages be not a fabrication — if the docu- 
 ments quoted and referred to be not forgeries — if the 
 facts stated be not delusions, — the Church of Scotland as 
 by law established adheres to the very principles which 
 her Reformers advocated, and enjoys the very privi- 
 leges for which our fathers bled. Her constitution is 
 unaltered. She enjoys unlimited spiritual freedom — 
 power of administration, within her own province, un- 
 challengeable. The terms of her compact with the 
 State she must observe ; but, observing these, her power 
 is supreme. Her ministers enjoy the undisputed right 
 of preaching the word of the living God — declaring 
 His whole counsel without danoer and without fear. 
 Her ordinances are administered without interruption, 
 according to the form which she has herself prescribed, 
 as founded on and drawn from the oracles of truth. 
 With her discipline, as respects admission to sealing 
 ordinances, no one has ventured to interfere ; but, on 
 the contrary, the civil powers have declared that with 
 that matter they have nothing to do. She may judge 
 in every case, and her decision is final. To her courts 
 belongs the sole right of admission to the sacred office. 
 If she, after solemn judgment, declares of any man — be 
 he the nominee of a congregation, or of a noble, or of 
 
people's eights secueed. 393 
 
 the crown — that he is not qualified for the office of the 
 ministry, or not suitable for the sphere to which he has 
 been presented, her decision is conclusive and unalter- 
 able. Her parishes, indeed, possess not the formal right 
 of nomination, although practically, in almost every 
 case, their reasonable wishes, when they choose to ex- 
 press them, are not thwarted ; but they do possess a full 
 and unchallengeable right to oppose the settlement of 
 any presentee ; and if any reasonable objections occur 
 to them, and are stated against the settlement, on the 
 ground of these objections, apart altogether from his 
 general qualifications, they have the right to demand 
 that the presentee be rejected. 
 
 Is this the Church from which ministers were ex- 
 horted to withdraw, if they would know the privilege 
 of ministerial liberty? — from whose communion the 
 people were besought to emancipate themselves, if they 
 would experience the blessings of spiritual freedom ? 
 Is this the institution from the pollution of which 
 Christian men were encouraged to endeavour to rid the 
 land? — the Babylon respecting which even good men 
 — and men, too, not questioning, but upholding, the 
 principle of Church and State alliance — ventured, in 
 the frenzy of their disappointment, to utter the warn- 
 ing, " Come out of her — Be ye separate from her — 
 Touch not the unclean thing ?" 
 
 Yes ! it was even so. Incredible, as doubtless it will 
 hereafter appear, when another age reviews the history 
 of the present — it was against this goodly fabric, reared at 
 such cost, venerable for years, associated with the noblest 
 
394 PREJUDICES WILL YIELD. 
 
 struggles for true freedom, and which had conferred 
 blessings unspeakable on generation after generation, 
 that, even by such men, the injurious words were uttered, 
 and the fierce assault directed. The assault, however, 
 was vain, as the reproach was unmerited. The fren- 
 zied fit is passing away. The smoke both of the 
 assault and of the defence is clearing off; and, as the 
 ancient edifice emerges from the gloom, and shews 
 once more her fair proportions and her unshattered 
 walls, her sons, confiding, as did their fathers, in the 
 protection of her glorious Head, triumphantly exclaim, 
 " Walk about Zion, and go round about her : tell the 
 towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her 
 palaces ; that ye may tell it to the generation following. 
 For this God is our God for ever and ever ! " 
 
 The people of Scotland love and venerate their 
 Church. For a time some may be beguiled by a 
 "counterfeit presentment," by a novelty claiming its 
 title, and skilfully endeavouring to assume its features. 
 But sooner or later the mistake will be detected. And 
 when they discover that her constitution is unaltered, 
 as assuredly they will — that she is the very Church of 
 Knox, and Melville, and Henderson — the misrepresen- 
 tations to which she has been subjected will make them 
 love her all the more. The Church which can point to 
 such an ancestry, and which has enrolled so many 
 martyrs in her list of sons — the Church whose teaching 
 guided their fathers to the world of rest, and which, 
 even now, notwithstanding the defection of so many, 
 is upholding in full vigour her schemes of Christian en- 
 
FACTS WILL TRIUMPH OVER FICTIONS. 395 
 
 terprise, and is receiving so many tokens of heavenly- 
 support — so many seals at home and abroad of the mi- 
 nistry of her sons — will not long underlie the suspicions 
 of intelligent men. Plausible abstractions may, for a 
 time, deceive them. High pretensions may beguile 
 them. But palpable facts will triumph in the end. 
 Some may tell them that the Church of Scotland is the 
 " Bond Church." But with their own eyes they will 
 see that she is free. They may tell them that she has 
 abandoned Non-intrusion, but their own eyes will con- 
 vince them that she is determined to uphold it. They 
 may say that she seeks to enslave them, but their own 
 observation and reflection will convince them that her 
 constitution is the Palladium of liberty, and that her late 
 struggle has chiefly been to oppose spiritual despotism, 
 under the name of spiritual independence. 
 
 These striking facts will, in due time, have their 
 effect : and weiofhed ao^ainst them, in the balance of 
 common sense, the plausible subtilities of metaphysical 
 abstractions will be light as air, and the charmer's 
 vocation will be gone, charm he ever so wisely. 
 
 But, even while apart, and while each may continue 
 to consider his own section of the Church as more 
 nearly approximating to the ancient and scriptural con- 
 stitution of the Church of Scotland than the other, 
 surely there is so much in common, as to render it not 
 difficult for good men, on either side, to co-operate in 
 the service of Him whom both alike profess to acknow- 
 ledge as the Head. If the foregoing examination shall 
 have the effect, in any case, of lessening or removing 
 
396 CO-OPEEATION. 
 
 that prejudice which condemned the adherent of the 
 Church, as clinging to a body professing, in spite of 
 evidence, to uphold the constitution of the Church of 
 our fathers, — and thus may, in some measure, pave the 
 way for the enlargement of brotherly love, by shewing 
 that, though in error, our error is not wilful, and that 
 we can render some reason for the faith which we hold, 
 — one object, at least, of the author shall be gained. 
 He disavows that bigotry which suspects the sincerity 
 of all that differ from him in opinion, even in matters 
 of high Importance, and of which he may be fully per- 
 suaded In his own mind. He desires to cherish and to 
 exercise that charity which, in Its wide range, embraces 
 all the race, and that brotherly kindness which spurns the 
 narrow limits of party diiTereiiceh. and glows with Chris 
 tian love towards the whole houtohold of faith. In every 
 Christian man he would recognise a brother — be he 
 Voluntary or Churchman — Episcopalian, Independent, 
 or Presbyterian. While he holds firmly his own peculiar 
 views, he ventures not to condemn as unchristian those 
 who, looking from a different point of observation, and 
 through a different medium, see many objects in another 
 light. Still, with the views he holds, the Church of 
 Scotland — imperfect though she be, and not yet ex- 
 empt from the need of further reformation — he loves 
 above all other Churches, as sound in doctrine, and pure 
 in her model of discipline ; a tried and honoured instru- 
 ment of good, to which God has vouchsafed many pre- 
 cious tokens of His favour ; the Church which our 
 fathers loved, which our fiithers' fathers founded, and 
 
OUR ziox. 397 
 
 which, guarded by solemn treaties, and, for security, in- 
 terwoven with the country's laws and constitution, thev 
 bequeathed to us, to be cherished as their most precious 
 legacy, protected by our utmost efforts, and transmitted 
 to our descendants as the people's Church for ever. 
 " Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy 
 palaces. For my brethren and companions' sakes, I 
 will now say. Peace be within thee. Because of the 
 house of the Lord our God I will seek thy good," 
 
 THE END. 
 
 PATON AND RITCHIE, PRINTEKS, EDINEURGH. 
 
•^r) 
 -■t^ 
 
 /o 
 
Date Due 
 
 A^ ■ ■■ 
 
 
 
 
 Vl|0 
 
 'I? 
 
 
 
 ,. 
 
 •T 
 
 
 
 MY3-Hn 
 
 
 
 
 AP 1 ^ -^ 
 
 
 
 
 J\i ; s; 
 
 
 
 
 ^if^y 2 2 'SS 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 Ip-i— ^-^-^ 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 -P-FT^' "^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^tg„tmi»a»imhMi4m 
 
 
 
 
 l^Sffittfli 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 *,-^, — ■ ._- 
 
 
 
 
 
 V*./^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^