AAG QV ~ ΝΝ MIXX KG XX ~~ \ Levee sey he oe τόνῳ, ARS ea ees τ SY $2) SESS YN ~~ an δ » CCDRRECECRQKKCC#Ra€4a_°RAE{KCENKS δ sy AQ OY WAS ὶ WN \\ AAS SSN « — \ _ OO vO δὲ . \\ XX GGG \\ AN SS S SS te ad CX NEM -YORK’+ >| ΤΩ > oy BR bsONAC UT TTT = ot the Theologica Sty; ἢ ναὶ ao lity PRINCETON, N. J. ΒΧ 9225 {C354 ° Wo Wilson, Willian, Memorials of Robert Smith Candi veh. D.D. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. pile MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. MINISTER OF ST. GEORGE’S FREE CHURCH, AND PRINCIPAL OF THE NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH BY WILLIAM” WILSON, D.D. MINISTER (EMERITUS) OF 51. PAUL’S FREE CHURCH, DUNDEE WITH CONCLUDING CHAPTER By ROBERT RAINY, D.D. PRINCIPAL, AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH EDINBURGH ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 1880 PREFATORY NOTE. = In these Memorials I have put on record all the information I could gather regarding Dr. Candlish personally—his early training—his habits of life— his correspondence—and his public transactions, _ Ecclesiastical and Philanthropic. It seemed suitable that a man who occupied such a prominent place, and who took such a large share in the transactions of a very critical period in the history of Scotland, should have his words, and actings in relation to them, embodied and preserved in this way; for these are of abiding interest, and largely illustrate an epoch of Scottish history, pregnant with issues which are still in progress of development in this and in other lands. To understand fully the transactions of that period it is necessary to be acquainted with the part Dr. Candlish took in them. WILLIAM WILSON. October 1880. “i "ae Hy ¥ fi { ἘΠ| ' δὰ Ot ἢ Ἷ . re del hie ¢ ΝΣ Pie 7 ‘ ) - CONTENTS. —— CHAPTER I. Parentage—Birth—Early death of father—Removal to Glasgow, and manner of life there—Home education—University career—Enters Divinity Hall —Reminiscences of fellow-students - - : Pages 1-30 CHAPTER II. Tutor at Eton—Correspondence— Licensed as a probationer—Assistant in St. Andrew’s Church, Glasgow—Assistant at Bonhill— Proposal to go to Canada —Characteristics of Mr. Gregor of Bonhill— Assistant in St. George’s, Edinburgh . : - . : Pages 31-53 CHAPTER III. Appointed Assistant Minister of St. George’s—Call to Regent Square, London —Call declined—Movement for his settlement in St. George’s—My first acquaintance with him—Presentation to St. George’s—Public sermons and lectures—His marriage—Home life—Proposal for a new church in Young Street—Church erected ; Mr. Moody-Stuart, minister—Provision for educational wants—Proposal to translate him to Greenside—How he entertained it—Induced to remain in St. George’s, missionary assistants being employed—Mr. A. A. Bonar—Missionary Association—Labours outside his own parish and congregation—Letter of consolation Pages 54-76 CHAPTER IV. First public speech, Assembly 1839—Second speech, Commission of Assembly August 1839—Dealing with the Legislature—Instruction of people— Hugh Miller— Witness newspaper—Mr. Candlish nominated as Professor of Biblical Criticism in Edinburgh University—Letter to Mr. Dunlop— Two CONTENTS. Change of front and appointment not made—Case of Marnoch—Seven Strathbogie ministers —Speech moving their suspension — Lethendy case—Visit to Strathbogie—Dr. Christie’s account of the proceedings at Huntly . 4 : ὲ : : . Pages 77-107 CHAPTER V. non-intrusion meetings in Edinburgh—Speeches of Mr. Candlish—Meet- ing in Glasgow—Speech on spiritual independence—March meeting of Commission—Speech on interdicts against preaching— Railways and Sabbath observance—Death of two of his children—Letter to Mr. Dunlop —Goes to Newcastle—Writes again to Mr. Dunlop—Liberum arbitriwm —Lord Aberdeen’s bill—August Commission—Libel against seven Strath- bogie ministers ; speech—Speech on government inspection of schools— Vacancy in Glasgow Theological Chair—‘‘ Engagement” in defence of the Church—Movement for abolition of Patronage . . Pages 108-126 CHAPTER VI. Commencement of Missionary Record—Testimony of Mr. H. Miller—Duke of Argyll’s Bill—Irish Presbyterian Church—Letter to Mr. Dunlop— Visit to London—Escape from Fire—Letter to his son James—Proposed gift — Assembly 1841—Spoke on Mission to Jews— Examination of Students—Case of Mr. Wright—Abolition of Patronage—Duke of Argyll’s Bill— Case of Daviot— Church Extension —Serving an Interdict on Assembly—Meeting in favour of Duke of Argyll’s Bill—Visit to Ire- land—Commission of Assembly—Sympathisers with seven Strathbogie Ministers — Speech at great meeting in West Church, Edinburgh — Speech at Glasgow on co-ordinate jurisdiction . . Pages 127-159 CHAPTER VIL Princeton College confers on Mr. Candlish the degree of D.D.— Speech at Perth — Patrons tampering with probationers — Case of Mr. Munro — Sabbath observance—Case of Culsalmond — Presbyterian Church in Treland — Speech at Leith — Anti-Patronage movement in Presbytery of Edinburgh—Speech in Assembly Rooms—Letter to Mr. Gibson, Belfast— Sabbath observance — Abolition of Patronage — Speech at Edinburgh — Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Letter to Mr. John Hamilton—Movement of the Forty—Speech on : : : : . Pages 160-194 CONTENTS. ix CHAPTER VIII. General Assembly 1842—Repeal of Act 1799—Superintendence of students— Abolition of Patronage— English Presbyterian Church — Censure for communion with deposed ministers of Strathbogie—Non-intrusion Com- mittee—Appointment of a day of humiliation—Bill of Mr. Campbell of Monzie—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Ordination at Stewarton—Meeting at Aberdeen—Chartists—Decision of House of Lords in Auchterarder case— Call at Ratho—Speech—Preparations for the Convocation—Memorial to Government : . : : 5 . Pages 195-218 CHAPTER IX. The Convocation—Publications of Dr. Candlish : . Pages 219-259 CHAPTER X. Narrow Escape from Drowning at Largo—Addresses Congregations in east of Fife—Resolutions in Presbytery of Edinburgh—Meeting of Commission in January 1843—-Goes to London—Letters to Mr. J. Hamilton and Rey. J. Gibson—Claim of Church rejected in House of Commons—Letters to Dr. Henderson and Rey. J. Gibson— Meeting in Waterloo Rooms— Speech in Presbytery—Speech at Glasgow—Speech in Synod of Glasgow and Ayr—Preparations for Disruption . . . Pages 260-298 CHAPTER XI. Assembly 1848 --- Disruption — Proceedings of Free Church Assembly — Speeches of Dr. Candlish—Meeting in City Hall, Glasgow—Bicentenary of Westminster Assembly—Meeting in Surrey Chapel, London—Meetings in Dumfriesshire — Presbytery of Edinburgh —Glasgow Assembly — Speeches of Dr. Candlish—Meeting in Tanfield Hall, Edinburgh—Preach- ing in Bute and at Kilsyth — Reminiscences of Mr.’ Gregory — School Building Scheme—Visit to England—Presbytery of Edinburgh—Anti- slavery meeting—Dr. Candlish’s generosity—Meeting in Waterloo Rooms —Associate Synod : : : : . Pages 299-335 CHAPTER XII. Assembly 1844 — Cheap Publications — Powers of Commission — Admission of Ministers of other Churches—Law Expenses— American Slavery — X CONTENTS. Waldenses—Sabbath Observance—State of Religion—Meeting for Prayer and Conference—Deputations to England—Progress of Church—School Building—Plantation of Churches—Associate Synod—Report on state of Religion—St. George’s Parochial Arrangements— Irish Assembly — Commission of Assembly—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Sabbath Travelling— American Slavery—Scheme for Examination of Students—Missions in South Africa—Home Mission of Irish Presbyterian Church— Death of Dr. Abercrombie—Church in Canada—Refusal of sites—Continental Churches — Persecution in Tahiti— Letter to Mr. Paul — Progress of Popery—University tests—Bereavements ᾿ . Pages 336-354 CHAPTER XIII. Assembly 1845—Sabbath observance —College appointments — Aberdeen College—Refusal of sites—State of religion—Home Mission—Education scheme —Sanctioning of charges—Speech on Christian union—Manse building—Sustentation Fund—Tour in Highlands—Inverness Assembly —Foreign Missions—Education—Refusal of sites—Supply of ordinances— Visit to Shetland—Evangelical alliance—Canton de Vaud—Manse build- ing—Canton de Vaud—Bible Society—Sabbath observance—Monument to Knox—Gaelic Schools—Sites for churches, manses, and schools— Assembly 1846—Christian union—Relations with Churches in United States—Continental Churches—Sabbath observance—A ppointed Convener of Education Committee—Speech on Education Scheme—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Commission of Assembly—Evangelical efforts on Continent— Stopping of Sunday trains on Edinburgh and Glasgow railway—Famine in Highlands—Education Scheme—Ordination of Danjibhiah Nowroji— Sustentation Fund—Home Missions—Sabbath observance—Continental Churehes—Free Church principles—West Port Church—Destitution in Highlands—Government scheme of Education . . Pages 355-396 CHAPTER XIV. Assembly 1847—Quoad sacra Churches— Education Scheme —Government Grants—Sustentation Fund—Death of Dr. Chalmers— Letter to Mr. Dunlop— Evangelical Alliance—Sites for Schools—Changes in New College—Dr. Candlish appointed Professor—Mr. Stewart elected Minister of St. George’s—His Death—Dr. Candlish’s introductory Lecture as Professor—Continues his work as Minister of St. George’s, and is relieved for the Session of his work as Professor—Resignation of Professorship— Sabbath Alliance—Canonbie, and Site refusing—Government Grants to Schools—Diplomatic relations “with Rome—Parish Schools—Home CONTENTS. Xi Missions—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Theological Halls—Proposed Bill for Sites—Assembly 1848—Canton de Vaud—Church Building—Extension of Theological Education—Highlands—Sites—Education Scheme —Canton de Vaud— Proposal to appoint Dr. Duff as Professor—Letter to Mr. Dunlop —Quoad sacra Churches—Fountainbridge Mission—National Schools— Dr. Candlish’s arm broken—Assembly 1849—Mr. Bannerman appointed Professor in New College—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Circular on Education —Address to Normal School Students—Sabbath observance—National Education—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Proposed Chair for Pastor of Students —Letter to Mr. Dunlop—New Gaelic Church . . Pages 397-435 CHAPTER XV. National Education—Progress of Popery—Dr. Candlish unwell— Marriage Affinity—Letter to Mr. Urquhart—Letter to Dr. J. Hamilton—Temper- ance—Assembly 1850—Home Mission—College Extension—Speech on Education—Address to Normal School Students—Journey to Sutherland and Caithness—Dr. M‘Lauchlan’s reminiscences—Papal Aggression— Original Ragged Schools—Medical Missions—Assembly overtures—Educa- tion Bill—Papal Aggression—Spiritual destitution in large towns— Assembly 1851—College controversy—Resolutions—Organising Associa- tions for Education Scheme— Letters to Mr. Gregory, and Education matters—Speech at Glasgow—Fountainbridge—IIlness of Dr. Candlish —Sustentation Fund—Jewish Mission at Pesth—Letter to Mr. Dunlop Pages 436-474 CHAPTER XVI. Assembly 1852—Union with Original Seceders— Provision for Parochial Teachers—Home Mission—Education Scheme—Irish Mission—Mission at Pesth—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Students’ trials for license—University tests—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Persecutions in Tuscany—College contro- versy—Assembly 1853—Claim of right—University tests—Sustentation Fund—Fountainbridge— Aberdeen Hall— Education Scheme—Day of Humiliation—Death of Dr. Gordon—Paid Popish chaplains in prisons— Death of Mrs. Candlish, senior—Lecture in Exeter Hall—Education Bill —Aberdeen Hall—Assembly 1854—Aberdeen Hall—American slavery— Home letter—Various meetings—Aberdeen Hall—New College—Susten- tation Fund—Spanish evangelisation—College controversy—Sympathy with Dr. Candlish—Call to Renfield, Glasgow—Letter on—Assembly 1855—Sustentation Fund—College extension—Education—Visit to Ire- land—Debt extinction—Letter to Dr. Hamilton—Parochial teachers— Industrial Schools—Education Bills . ὃ ᾿ Ἢ Pages 475-501 xi CONTENTS. CHAPTER XVIL Assembly 1856—Glasgow College—Appointment of Professors—Sustentation Fund—Edueation Bills—Letter to Mr. Paul—Letter to Mr. Dunlop— Aberdeen College — Glasgow College— Dr. Candlish at Belfast — Dr. M‘Crie—Training of Students—Election of Ministers—Death of Hugh Miller—Letter to Dr. Henderson—Assembly 1857—Election of Professors —Education—College endowment—Waldensian Church—Indian mutiny —Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Assembly 1858—Cardross Case—Letter to Dr. Buchanan—Testimonial to Principal Cunningham—Letter to Dr. Hender- son—Free Church offices—Letter to Dr. Hamilton—Students attending Foreign Universities—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Tests of Parochial Teachers — Assemby 1859— New Assembly Hall — Professor Gibson and his students— Mr. Brownlow North — National Education — Government Schools in India—Letter to Mr. Dunlop—American slavery—Illness of Dr. Candlish—Letters to Mr. Bell—Dr. Candlish goes to Germany—Mr. Dykes called to be colleague in St. George’s—Letters to Dr. Hamilton— Letter to Dr. Henderson—Uncertain health . 8 Pages 502-525 CHAPTER XVIII. Assembly 1861—Dr. Candlish Moderator—Irish Assembly—Cardross Case— Memoir of Rey. A. Gray—Pilrig Church—Death of Principal Cunning- ham—Supply of ministers—Dr. Cunningham’s Library—Education Bill —Assembly 1862—Dr. Candlish Principal, and Dr. Rainy Professor in New College—Home Mission—KEjection of ministers, 1662—Testimonial to Dr. Candlish—Normal School— Death of Mr. Gavin Anderson— Education Scheme—Lecture on the first General Assembly—Free Church _ principles—Assembly 1863—Union negotiations—College endowment— J. S. Candlish inducted at Logiealmond—Tighnabruaich—Letter to Mrs. Henderson—Address on Inspiration—Opening of Moray Church— Cunningham Lectures—Letter to Mrs. Henderson—Assembly 1864— Union question—Resignation of Mr. Dykes—Fountainbridge—Roseburn —New church for St. George’s—Assembly 1865—Highlands and Islands —Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Letters to Dr. Buchanan—Assembly 1866— Union question—Use of hymns in public worship—Letter to Dr. Buchanan— Death of youngest daughter—Letters to Dr. Buchanan— Letter to Miss Campbell—St. George’s Congregation . Pages 526-546 CHAPTER XIX. Assembly 1867—Mission to Jews—Chair of Evangelical Theology—American Churches—Union question—Leaving Lothian Road Church—Switzerland CONTENTS. xii —Church in Shandwick Place—Death of Dr. Hamilton—Letter to Dr. Rainy—Address to Congregation—Call to Mr. Laidlaw—Assembly 1868— Irish Presbyterian Church—Union question—Call to Dr. Dods—Letter to a Lady—Letter to Dr. Buchanan—Assembly 1869—Union question— Church in Wales—Education Bill—In North Wales—Church in Shand- wick Place opened—Letter to Dr. Buchanan—Proposal to call Mr. J. H. Wilson—Proposal to go to America—Letter to Dr. Rainy—Letter to Mr. Maclagan—Letter to Mrs. Henderson—Assembly 1870—Union question —Call to Mr. Whyte—Letters to Mr. Maclagan—Letter to Mr. Paul— Letter to Dr. Buchanan—Induction of Mr. Whyte—Fountainbridge— Meeting of friends of Union—Letters to Dr. Buchanan—Assembly 1871 —Union question—Viewforth Church—Letter to Mr. Bell—Letter to Mr. Maclagan—IMness—Goes to south of England—Letter to Mr. Bell Pages 547-567 CHAPTER XxX. Letter to Dr. Buchanan on Union—Letter to Mrs. Henderson—Letter to Dr. Buchanan—Letter to Dr. Rainy—Letters to Dr. Buchanan—Letter to Mr. Bell—Letters to Mr. Maclagan—Pastoral letter—New College—Letter to Mr. Bell—Letter to Dr. Buchanan—Letter to Dr. Rainy—Letters to Mr. Bell—Letters to Miss Fraser—Address to Students—Conference at Inverness—Debt on New College—Letters to Dr. Buchanan—Letter to Dr. Rainy—Resumed Preaching—Funeral sermon of Dr. Guthrie— Bust—Letters to Dr. Rainy—Letter to Mr. Moody-Stuart—Assembly 1873 —Motion on Union—Explanatory statement—Preaches for the last time— Letter to Dr. Buchanan—Letter to Dr. Rainy—Letters to Mr. Maclagan —Letters to Dr. Rainy—Closing scenes : : Pages 568-600 CHAPTER XXI. Dr. Candlish as a Theologian, by Robert Rainy, D.D., Principal and Professor of Church History, New College, Edinburgh. . Pages 601-623 feel 24 bi εἶν ρνῷ.-. οὐ εν ἐκ ie πο ΝΥ νυ οὐ δ το ΟΞ fet’ Ἰὼ : ew’ peri Rela ee tly a2 ede fei ey fe ah : ae ae, ica =) {a teen! wats τ ΠΡ ὦ τ ν τ Δ" 0) te —- laut σ᾽ : ΠῚ ὁ ἐρρῖνα.ὁν.. ΚΕ νι FAC SIMELE FROM MANUSCRIPT OF SERMON ON 1.TIMOTHY I. 5. ali Gone ice clea a αθοΝ Reh τὰς κα Ce dorms ἀν ἡ. ὦ nphiKe Woe Kene'y Bee tnt mam’, inthe eprelp in He tram [does κω. / tmdlted. pve omy Coutilemarnce { Fe ὑμλῦνν fob Jesus Ons Nhe hediobn ὦ Q ene tmam jth Me contrary A cnggeole 4 "βιό, 17 frag το Wek μόναι. Ihe vey tad Benn @ tor Kind 22 Herod tks obrefs lak am to Dh Lec db macnlicd a Uay σὰ Tinea lhl ὦ febed h dnnety Hee ssa/pne cio fh Moen toner εβοῦῳ in tae Mer, Mas Anat the rund seplanaKn 4 He impartbence thaith Post κων βοᾷ athe, { $25 Toren, snnaikin wh hy dn cy abd Duh Beare ota Aetronts Ke woe Mai dome Rampur gb dee. τως Ronen ia os ree Pa cpa finery aad ar Fa rng [ὦ tan hw bere mee Han ber Ὃ @} ; "ζωὴ fray ene «δέ. crmbrarie alt: conpnensicg tix are & joy Κα edn Mrb-taolhr-She, οὐΖ,.)-. ῳ : τς ἐς pad gf μηρί Of fr abe Habs ane cn anlttt, Ans dincled napenttind Jn a vending Conse Se = = © » TEMS = They were ' oe Si, μα be, Hey Hen ene, κὸ αν Wea tims ἴω, prtread, He tmenaita ἢ och; asphonsns qh ment peace 4 “be chan, ἀν an ee .-ϑ0Ὁ On tab, κι in Athan (pornela, Hay nat deer, ἐ be Depot Ke neal iii i bleed eas LK coll, © fron % be, Ravan bu ΠΥ Guole, au Had, irae merch Leling Ue Go ἢ brug ΟΝ nh Maing Seed abn [Be Seas πιο, anole, ΡΝ ΠΣ ὅτ᾿ mers tos ly nant Kiemebost οὐ flesrwne eae —— ὦ Keene Are nd ἐμάν Nantrns, ΟἹ oo annie Tat Cech immrhind tle amar le gc windlppers, SS EEE Pyne ὦ hadrons Con, toutes tt tr | firs abrdrone Akane ly ame Pete sadn Leawtn & onion pote heel, rt te ἀκα Ben 3 harnime Rosina. αἰκίαν ἐν God fe) thet Avay hy, ay te. hank FAC SEMILE ¥ROM MANUSORIPT OF SERMON ON LTLMOTIY OS ee ten IST a) ΓΞ ton Κι pa Fong He τα man μα ἀραξουα κω des ον Trend μεσ) teen ἀπὸ τον Hab ine Ld ολλκκῶας 2 tren san Matin cb nga « fancies 16 dhasfe lad dmg “Ἐζακιοιάι α Baw | pel ome cl a keen Rae rather toca Aa te ree pnatin g Kempe SOM fot man fo atthe thy Ein nna te afar hab ih Bisnter τόση And ce AM tent inp hedabng κὶ Ray facta rg ime nt Byala teal ἄνομα ὁ nfs ὑπ testes ra διττὴ ἄνς Me Rei fon birt tna Hin ber hha ate τέ ees Then ppl spt ste frig pe se i, ν Dahm i gd, Hoy ay “ες. be δε τα Hi me Sore Hedy Ah lat png Spee ἀφραφση preg, Af UL doa rape tes dona ical Com ap Kars ds rs fee δμα py Ce μετὰ Τὸ fg Ala apy et} fay fa abe δας ve και ΠῚ tere flan, ἀπο hey ve eo mye τες ἔλνίυι κου καυς μου κι dete mtn Hat lata, ἔτος ὡς salen Bote he ales pers baste 9 He bal, ΣΙ [ως nb natal, ey pals pee et Fa ae ptf ee Shale (Brchate Stook tel fica μοι άγσεις Ἔξος κε ὧδ δ Bah Singh ον Ee de, Rela 7.» .445-- πρό εξ τοι f= ΠΤ anf nfm tas Laem Tabard esp fe ant an is Se ad ft ane fur! ἐιποκάφ ον τ nen ced τ μας sedate nebe GE ara He mem thing τὰ Ged tne tte ἘΞ: “ὦ ἘΠ δ τις ξεν πε in se aie ans sce μετ ὭΣ: κα ϑ μη Mat i nd ane Tt thong oy cd λύγος πως, FILS Lag ἴω shade Addai ane Fe nadie ἄρνας κατ ικας Re I ete cds) Be rea Neve κι Gut bd adeno He say k boosted CEA. P Ry ἢ Parentage—Birth—Early death of father—Removal to Glasgow, and manner of life there—Home education—University career—Enters Divinity Hall —Reminiscences of fellow-students. ON a tombstone in the Calton Burying-ground, Edinburgh, there is the following inscription :— JAMES CANDLISH, A.M., Teacher of Medicine, Edinburgh, died 29th April 1806, aged 46 years. JANE SMITH, his widow, died 20th January 1854, aged 86 years. JANET, their daughter, died 12th March 1797, aged 9 months. JANET SMitTH, their daughter, died 12th February 1803, aged 2 years. Henry, their son, died 24th April 1805, aged 6 months. JANE Situ, their daughter, died in Glasgow, 23d May 1827, aged 30 years, buried at High Church, Glasgow. E1iza L. Smiru, their daughter, died 1st January 1867, aged 67 years. Watrer, son of R. S. CanpuisH, D.D., Edinburgh, | died 20th February 1840, aged 6 months. JANE SMITH, his daughter, died 30th March 1840, aged 1 year 9 months, Agnes, his daughter, died 24th April 1845, aged 2 years 9 months. Mary Ross, his daughter, died 30th September 1866, aged 15 years 8 months, ROBERT S. CANDLISH, born 23d March 1806, died 19th October 1873. James Candlish, A.M., and Jane Smith, the parents of the six sons and daughters whose deaths are registered on this tombstone, and of others whose names are not found there, were both brought up in Ayrshire (although James Candlish was a native of Galloway), and in that district of the county B 2 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. which has been peculiarly designated as the land of Burns. They were contemporaries of the poet, James Candlish having been born in the same year with him, and were both within the circle of his acquaintances. In his published letters there are two addressed to James Candlish. The first of them 15 dated “Edinburgh, March 21st, 1787,” and Mr. Candlish is there addressed as “Student in Physic, Glasgow,” and called “ My ever dear old acquaintance.” The other letter is without date, but written from Edinburgh, and, from its contents, evidently in the following year. Mr. Candlish in it is ad- dressed as “ My dear friend,” and it points to the prospect of renewed correspondence at a less busy time. In a letter also, sent by the poet from Ellisland to Mr. Peter Hill, bookseller, Edinburgh, dated conjecturally March 1789, he thus speaks of James Candlish :—“Candlish, the earliest friend, except my only brother, that I have on earth, and one of the worthiest fellows that ever any man called by the name of friend, if a luncheon of my best cheese would help to rid him of some of his superabundant modesty, you would do well to give it him.” In 1787, when Burns was busy furnishing material for Johnstone’s Musical Musewm, it appears that James Candlish was applied to for some little help in that publication, Burns wrote him as follows :— “T have collected, begged, borrowed, and stolen all the songs I could meet with, ‘ Pompey’s Ghost’ (a Gaiwegian song, John Low, author), words and music, I beg from you immediately, to go into his second number—the first is already published. I shall show you this first number when I see yéu in Glasgow, which will be in a fortnight or less. Do be so kind as to send me the song in a day or two ; you cannot imagine how much it will oblige me.” To this request James Candlish replied in a way which shows his keen appreciation of Scottish song :— “Your kind letter came to hand, and I would have answered it sooner, had I not delayed in expectation of finding some person who MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 3 could enable me to comply with your request. Being myself unskilled in music as a science, I made an attempt to get the song you mentioned set by some other hand ; but, as I could not accomplish this, I must send you the words without the music. Some of Edina’s fair nymphs may perhaps be able to do you a piece of service which I would have done with the greatest pleasure had it been in my power. It is with the greatest sincerity I applaud your attempt to give the world a more correct and more elegant collection of Scottish songs than has hitherto appeared. They have been long and much admired ; and yet, perhaps, no poetical compositions ever met with approbation more dispropor- tioned to their merits. Many, from an affectation, perhaps, of a more than usual knowledge of ancient literature, extol with the most extra- vagant praises the pastoral productions of the Greek and Roman poets, and attempt to persuade us that in them alone is to be found that natural simplicity, and that tenderness of sentiment, which constitute the true excellence of that species of writing. For my own part, though I cannot altogether divest myself of partiality to the ancients, whose merit will cease only to be admired with the universal wreck of men and letters, yet I am persuaded that in many of the songs of our own nation there are beauties which it would be vain to look for in the most admired poetical compositions of antiquity. They are the offspring of nature ; they are expressed in the language of simplicity : and the love songs, breathing sentiments that are inspired by the most tender and exquisite feelings, are in unison with the human heart. There is no one in whose veins the smallest drop of Scottish blood cir- culates but must feel the most heartfelt pleasure when he reflects that those songs which do such honour to both the genius and the feel- ings of his countrymen, which, in simplicity of language, and in the sensibility that pervades them, have never been equalled by those of any nation, and which have been so much admired by foreigners, will continue to be sung with delight by both sexes while Scotsmen and the Scots language remain. If the collection is to be published by sub- scription put down my name for a copy. My time this winter is very much employed—no less than ten hours a day.” The occupation of James Candlish, like that of so many other students, was teaching—an occupation for which he had no peculiar liking, but which was necessary for earning the means of subsistence. Necessarily also, as a student, he was forecasting the future, and had to make up his mind as 4 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. to his future avocation. It appears from a letter of his still extant, dated 1784, that he had entertained some purpose of studying for the ministry. But there were hindrances in the way; and above all this, that he had adopted religious views which, although far from being in harmony with the Confes- sion of Faith, were too generally entertained at the time, and most of all, perhaps, by ministers of the Church of Scotland. James Candlish was too honest to undertake to teach others what he did not himself believe.to be true. In his letter, apparently to a fellow-student, he says :— “By nature I hate hypocrisy, and consequently feel great reluct- ance to preach doctrines I do not believe. I have never felt it possible to dissemble my opinions for one day when I had any need to express myself in religious matters, and from this have concluded that should I ever put myself into an employment which will make it necessary for me to dissemble, my own internal happiness must be lost by it.” Thus it happened that James Candlish turned his atten- tion to the study of medicine, and when his studies in that science had been sufficiently advanced, he was. doubtless attracted to Edinburgh, as presenting a much wider field for prosecuting the calling to which he had devoted himself as Teacher of Medicine. “And, accordingly, he is found resident there at least as early as 1789. In his profession he was eminently successful, and is referred to as an authority twenty years after his death, as appears from evidence given before the University Commissioners 11th December 1820. James Candlish’s life was very brief, and one suspects from this fact, as well as from the fact of so many of his children dying in early years, that he must have had some constitutional infirmity. Mr. Benjamin Bell, surgeon, fur- nishes the following note concerning him from Dr. Aber- crombie, who knew him, and attended him in his last illness: —“He was a gentleman of short stature, full flabby habit, and sallow complexion, at least latterly. He was in the act MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 5 of making a speech in the Royal Medical Society on the evening of April 28th, 1806, when he was seized with an uneasy sensation in his head ‘as if his head would have burst,’ or ‘as if the brain had been too big for the skull.’ This feel- ing soon went off; and he continued his speech. When he had finished it he left the room, and felt extremely ill. After some time he was able to walk home; and Dr. Abercrombie saw him about an hour after the attack. He continued sen- sible for two hours, but was much oppressed, and answered questions very slowly. Everything was done for him that skill could suggest, but by eleven o’clock he had lapsed into a state of complete insensibility. Dr. Abercrombie has re- corded the case in his book on the brain; and it is certainly one of great interest to the professional reader.’ He died on the 29th April 1806, when his youngest child Robert Smith was just five weeks old. The name of Jane Smith, the wife of James Candlish, has also been mentioned by Burns; but in her case it is in one of his earlier poems. Among the six belles of Mauchline, of whom he sang in 1784 as “the pride of the place, and its neighbourhood a’,” and whom he characterised as possessing various attributes fitted to win respect and admiration, he says of her, “Miss Smith, she has wit,” by which he meant, doubtless, that she was possessed of strong common sense and sagacity. She survived her husband for well-nigh half a century ; and although there is no memory of him among the living, there are many who have a vivid recollection of her, as she lived in the house of her only surviving son. As I remember her, she was a lady of stately and somewhat majestic presence, grave and reserved in manner, although always kindly and courteous. She had bright eyes, and a face beam- ing with intelligence. Mr. Bell says -— “Mrs. Candlish (senior), when I first became acquainted with her, must have been about sixty-six years of age; and at once impressed 6 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. me with the conviction that she was a very superior woman. She had a firm mouth, and eyes which seemed to see one through and through.” By the sudden and early death of her husband Mrs. Candlish was left in very narrow circumstances, requiring the most rigid and even stern economy. This was carried to the extent of refusing to put crape on her mourning dress. She said that this was out of no want of respect for her husband’s memory, but she had no right to take the bread out of her children’s mouths. A favourite maxim through life with her was “out of debt out of danger.’ With a view to earn a livelihood for her family, consisting of two sons and two daughters, she removed to Glasgow, and by keeping a school for young ladies, she was enabled creditably to maintain her- self and her children. Of the two daughters, one, Jane Smith, died in 1827, and the other, Eliza Smith, survived till 1867, and was, along with her mother, an inmate in the house of her younger brother in Edinburgh till nearly the close of her life. Of the sons, James Smith, the elder of the two, died of fever in 1829, at the commencement of what promised to be -& prosperous career. Mr. Bell says :—“Mrs. Candlish had a very high estimate of her elder son, James, and he must, in- deed, from all accounts, have been a young man of remarkable attainments and of rare promise. She remarked to me more than once, “ Robert was naething thocht o’ so long as James lived.” This was natural enough, considering that James was some years his brother’s senior, and had already achieved considerable success in his profession as a medical man. An anecdote concerning hifn is very creditable to his kindness of heart and brotherly affection. For many years after her hus- band’s death Mrs. Candlish had a hard struggle with the “res angusta domi” in Glasgow, and was in the habit, from motives of needful economy, of making her son’s clothes with her own hands, even during the years of his college course. When the time came for Robert to enter on the same course, James went MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 7 to his mother and insisted that Robert should have his clothes made by a regular tailor, and so be spared the ridicule and discomfort which he himself had undergone. James Candlish, according to another witness who knew him well, was not only a man of great ability, but very gentlemanly in his ap- pearanceand manners. He was a taller man than his brother, and, like him, had a large well-formed head and broad chest. Robert Smith Candlish was never sent to school. This may have been due to the straitened circumstances already referred to, or it may have been because, in his early boyhood, he was not very robust, and the numerous deaths among her children would make his mother very careful that her Ben- jamin should not be exposed to the risks and vicissitudes of public school life. As afterwards appeared he had very competent instructors in his mother and elder sister and brother, and, doubtless, they had in him a very apt pupil, as eager to acquire knowledge as they were toimpart it. There are few surviving reminiscences of his boyhood, save that at first he was “somewhat delicate, and rather timid,” but soon acquiring strength and courage he engaged with hearty en- joyment in the games and amusements of his companions. Those who knew him well in his mature years will under- stand with what zest and spirit he would participate in such pleasures ; for, till late in life, like many other distinguished men, he retained the ardour and elasticity of boyhood, and could join with entire sympathy in youthful amusements. Of his home surroundings during his early and college life we have a vivid representation given us by the Rev. Andrew Urquhart, minister at Portpatrick, whose friendship for Robert Candlish was strengthened by the fact that their fathers had been college chums; and Robert spent many pleasant days at Kilbirnie, where Andrew’s father was minister. “Tt always appeared to me that, more than to all his other teachers, he was indebted to his mother. He reverenced her with all the loyalty 8 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. of the tenderest filial observance. And she was indeed in every respect worthy. I always think of her as I knew her in my college days in Glasgow. I think of her as the grandest old lady I have ever seen. Most wondrously tenacious of well-ascertained facts, and singularly in- different to hypothetical speculations, her intellectual perceptions were always clear, and her practical logic indomitable. Most conservative of all established proprieties, she was at once dignified and motherly, courteous and kind; and her manner carried with it an authority which, in the quietest conceivable way, was absolute, decisive, and indisputable. Whether as the head of her family and household, or among her visitors, she seemed to me the very model of a motherly Christian sovereign. Under such an influence the habits of subordination to duty and order were sure to be cultivated ; and to these early habits I have always attributed much of that wonderful power which, in the hearts not less than in the minds of both her sons, ever found a place for everything, and kept everything in its place and proportion. “T have referred to her two sons as they were known in public life. But I cannot forget that the results of the same early training were exhibited, in different ways but not less admirably, by her two daughters in their more private sphere. Their assiduous and orderly attention to domestic duties, and their filialand sisterly affection, mani- fested in every way, were tenderly recognised and cordially reciprocated by their mother and their brothers. Indeed, the whole fireside was abundantly blessed with the fruits of the old Scottish family order. All the members of the family seemed to live much for one another, and to illustrate very remarkably the Scriptural principle, ‘Let each esteem other better than themselves. “Tt was a very heavy stroke to all of them, and especially to the aged mother, so quietly but unmistakably proud of all her children, when her eldest son, James, at that time her highest and fondest hope, was suddenly cut off by typhus fever, just as he was preparing to enter on his duties as professor of surgery in the Andersonian University. During the preceding session, and when he had just begun to practise as a doctor of medicine, he had delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics’ Institution, and his most lucid expositions had attracted the notice of some of the most distinguished men of literature and science in the city. Much hope was entertained of his future eminence, both as a physician and as a professor; and I believe that his death was regarded as a public loss by the medical faculty generally. I remem- ber well how, on another reckoning, the intelligence affected me when it reached me in the country. I thought of the quiet mid-day walks MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 9 which, during the past year, I had frequently enjoyed with the doctor, and I felt'as if Glasgow could never again be Glasgow to me. Few now survive to remember the Andersonian professor whose vigorous mind, thoroughly cultivated and richly stored with varied information, was remarkably distinguished by the composure of settled principle and purpose, and by a very large measure of the gift of common sense ; whilst an undemonstrative but kindly manner made familiar intercourse with him as free and agreeable as it was always sure to be profitable. How soon oblivion comes over the hopes of the past when they have been cut off! But that life was not lost, the remembrance of which lived during long years after in the grateful heart of him who, recently taken from us, has left an indelible impression on his country’s history, and who delighted to tell to loving ears how much he owed to his elder brother James, and how much he cherished and revered his memory,” We have also a charming note from Miss Duncan, a fellow pupil of his at his mother’s school, which gives us a vivid picture of Robert Candlish in his earlier years. Miss Duncan says :— “ When I first came to be associated with Dr. Candlish he was a little boy of about eight years of age. We were at that time very much together, both at lessons and play. While the girls were engaged at needlework little Robert always sat on a low stool beside his mother, doing sums of arithmetic, of which occupation he never seemed to tire. He never was sent to a public school. His mother and eldest sister gave him all the instruction he required until he was too far advanced for them to carry on. His eldest sister’s love for her little brother was very tender. She watched over and took an interest in everything he did and said. I remember her often saying how much she felt hurt at the remarks people made about him, when she went out with him and an old nurse, Jenny, who came with his mother and young family to Glasgow. He was a peculiar but interesting-looking child. His delicate fair complexion, his large forehead, and eyes with very long eye-lashes, and the rest of his body being so small, made him so pecu- liar-looking that people often stopped and asked whose child he was. One day a lady gave him a penny, which he carried home and showed to his mother, and asked if she thought the lady took him for a beggar ; he was so early trained to abhor everything that was mean and selfish. His brother James, who was, I think, about four or five years older than Robert, took his education entirely on himself after his mother’s 10 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. training. Hers was a severe school of discipline ; but she had such an objection to anything like a child being punished by whipping that she at once removed her eldest son James from an English school he had been sent to in Glasgow on account of his having come home one day and told that he had been punished in that way along with some other boys, and, as he thought, unjustly. After that a tutor was got for him—NMr. Clark, who was afterwards minister of Canongate Church, Edinburgh. There was another English master (Sheridan Knowles), quite famous at the time for his elocution, He had a good deal to do in teaching the boys to read well, and to repeat by heart long pieces of metre and blank verse. He compiled a book called The Orator, in which were a great many selections from Shakespeare and the best of the poets. Indeed, that part of his education was so much attended to that when he and his two cousins, Adam and John Bogle, were all under the tuition of James Candlish, their very recreations were of such an intellectual character that the great amusement of a Satur- day afternoon, or any other holiday, was to get Mrs. Candlish to invite the aunts and cousins to tea, and then the large schoolroom was made into a kind of theatre, the company arranged on forms at the one end, and a large screen towards the other, formed of a green crumb- cloth hung over a string. The three boys were behind the screen, and when it was pulled aside the acting began, that is to say, the boys came forward and repeated in a theatrical way long pieces from Shake- speare’s historical plays. Hamlet’s address to the players was a great favourite, and Cato. Dr. Candlish had a great defect in his articula- tion ; but every pains was taken to correct it. When any celebrated actor came to Glasgow the boys were taken to the theatre ; and always after that there was an imitation of it at home the first opportunity.” According to the bad practice of entering college too young—a practice which was almost universal at the time— Robert S. Candlish was sent to the University of Glasgow in his thirteenth year, on the 10th October 1818. It was some compensation for this, however, that his undergraduate course extended over five years, terminating in the spring of 1823, when he obtained.the degree of M.A. His career at the University was by no means undistinguished, and his name appears in the prize-lists during every successive session of his course. During the session 1818-19 he seems only to MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 11 have attended the Latin class, in which he gained the sixth prize. At the close of the following session (1819-20) his name appears four times in the prize-lists. He gained the second prize for original composition in Latin prose; the second for translation from English into Latin prose; the fifth for exemplary diligence ; and the fifth prize in the Greek class for propriety of conduct, diligence, and eminent abilities dis- played during the session. At the close of session 1820-21 his name appears six times in the prize-lists. He gained the first prize for original Latin prose; the sole prize given for translation of Cicero “De Amicitia;” the fourth prize in the senior Greek class; the fifth prize in the class Logic Juniores, the late Lord Ardmillan being the third on the same list; the first prize for the best specimen of recollection ; and the second for excelling in the Blackstone examination. At the close of session 1821-22 his name appears four times in the prize- lists, and during this session his name stands always first— in the class of Ethics Juniores; for superior excellence in Latin themes; for a vacation theme on the controversy between Nominalists and Realists; and for the best essay on the Roman Dictatorship. At the close of session 1822-23 his name is found three times in the prize-lists— once for the best essay on Roman Censorship ; once for the best essay on the poetical character of Aristophanes as it is displayed in the conception and execution of the “Clouds ;” and his name is second in the prize-list of the Natural Philosophy class. He entered upon his studies in the Divinity Hall in session 1823-24, and at the close of the session he gained a silver — medal for the best view of the evidence from miracles for the truth of Christianity, and the third prize for general eminence. After this his name does not appear in the records of the University; but we learn from a note of his own, dated 1869, that he attended the Divinity Hall three regular 12 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. and one partial session, and finally left college in December 1826. I have before me interesting reminiscences of his college life from several of his fellow-students, some of which I insert as affording a life-like picture of what Robert S. Candlish was in those early days. To Professor James 8. Candlish, the Rey. Josias Walker, now rector of Wood Ditton, near Cam- bridge, writes :— “ My earliest recollection of your father dates from the year 1818, when, in the month of October, being boys of thirteen, we became class- fellows and bench-fellows under my father, the Professor of Humanity in Glasgow College. Candlish speedily showed his superiority in point of application, capacity, and conduct, to all but a very few of his fellow- pupils. A reference to the files of the Glasgow newspapers of that period, containing the prize-lists of succeeding firsts of May, will show how high he stood among us during our entire curriculum. In this career of distinction he was followed at the distance of one year by his cousin Adam Bogle, who gained, like himself, the favour of every professor into whose class they successively came. By their fellow- students they were regarded with affectionate and admiring reverence. Both alike trained under the roof of widowed mothers, both enjoying the wise tuition of your accomplished uncle James. There was in them, without a trace of effeminacy, a purity of thought, an unconscious sanctity of character, that could not be forgotten, even amid the most boisterous excitement of boyish sports. Not the most coarse and reck- less of their comrades would have uttered in their ears a lewd or profane word. Yet they were not utterly exempt from the minor sufferings which the young and weak too often undergo when mingled with older or stronger boys. I can well remember your father’s flushed face and writhen features, while, close under the professor's pulpit, our light- hearted and waggish friend Tom Miller shook him with sudden cor- diality by the hand, having previously by some cunning dodge inserted a sharply-fluted pencil-case between the fingers. Of course the victim was too magnanimous to betray his tormentor by a cry, while the latter was too wary, and, I think, too really good-natured to push the torture beyond what nature, however strong, could silently endure. “I never came into very close relation with the cousins till 1822, when Mrs. Bogle invited me to visit her in a house which she had hired for the summer at Helensburgh, then a primitive enough sea-side MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 13 resort. There James and Robert Candlish were domesticated with her own two boys and girls, and happy indeed was the week I spent in their society. Rides, drives, and botanising rambles over moors and hill-tops were our chief active occupation. Their conversation, whether in active or sedentary hours, however gay and flowing, had always a refined and elevating tone. James’s quiet influence would have ensured this, even if your father and his cousins had been of a less thoughtful turn. I can recall one illustration of your father’s independence of judgment, at the early age of seventeen, which he had then attained. Under such a teacher as your uncle scientific enthusiasm was easily fired, So it is not surprising that, having sat down on the morning of a persistently rainy day to identify a moss which he had gathered on the summit of Banachen—so, I think, the hill was named—Bogle and I, with an occasional hint from James, continued till nearly dusk our endeavours, vain after all, if I remember, to identify the species in Hooker's Flora. Robert had shared the investigation for an hour or two, when he suddenly got up, declaring time and intellectual power to be, in his mind, too valuable to be so lavishly expended on a study which, pursued as we were pursuing it, yielded little more fruit than a copious list of names. He withdrew to his Shakespeare, or Hume’s England, from which sources he was then storing his mind with imagery, knowledge, and language, to be turned to profit in his destined calling of a preacher of Divine truth. Bogle was made of less stern stuff, and would not desert his friend and guest, for the botanical craze was perhaps chiefly mine, as long as the latter thought fit to pore over the petty object of our study. Ah! how beautiful, how amiable, how mentally endowed young Adam was, and how deplored even by mere acquaintances, when he died in 1827 of decline.” What immediately follows in Mr. Walker’s communica- tion carries us on to a period somewhat later, but it may not be unsuitable to insert it here :— “ Lodged for a week, in autumn 1825, in the same London board- ing-house with your uncle James, then on his return from Paris, where he had completed his long course of medical study, I, no longer a mere boy, learned fully to appreciate the charm of his society. With a mind richly stored with literary, and fully with scientific lore ; exempt from prejudice of every kind, yet restrained by natural sobriety of judgment from all extravagance of speculation ; with a power of clear exposition and a readiness of expression that made him subsequently 14 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. one of the most popular of lecturers ; bland and tolerant towards all who differed from him, he might startle my hereditary conservatism, now long extinct, by his large and liberal views, but the captivation of his talk was irresistible. He was the most accomplished man whose intimacy I have ever gained. From the period of his return to Glas- gow, where he settled as a general practitioner, he was my almost daily companion and dearest friend. “Tn 1828, if I am not mistaken (1829 is the proper date), your father returned from Eton to become assistant, or curate in full charge, as we should say here, to Dr. Gibb, the Hebrew professor, as incum- bent of St. Andrew’s Church. My intercourse with my old friend became now much more constant than in former days. His severe logicality of mind was indeed somewhat antagonistic to my less rigid and uncompromising turn of thought. But James could enter into sympathy with both, and thus we formed a sufficiently harmonious trio. Your father, though firm as a rock in all his own opinions, was as incapable as his brother of ill-temper, intolerance, or bitterness. Yet James’s intellectual sympathies were more fully, I think, on my side, at least in our theological discussions. I remember how, after one of them, in which your father had insisted on a fuller adherence to the spirit in which the Westminster Divines had framed their Confession than we were disposed to yield, your uncle, when left alone with me, said, with a serious smile, ‘ Bob will one day cause the Church a deal of trouble, or words as nearly as possible to that effect. “ At. this time I was a constant attendant on your father’s minis- trations in St. Andrew’s. Nothing of rigid Calvinism was discernible in his preaching. His sermons were eminently practical, lucid in expression, and full of thought ; often argumentative, but never abstruse. He had, as he told me, taken Barrow for his model, having studied that great man’s works systematically, with the desire of attaining to something like his copiousness and facility of speech. Nor had he studied them in vain. “T shall never forget your father’s ghastly hue and emaciated con- dition while he watched by your uncle James as he lay delirious during that attack of typhus, of which he died in the autumn of 1829, Never was grief more terrible than that of the surviving brother ; never did the death of a friend cause me such desolation as I then endured. His memory served greatly to strengthen such affection as existed between your father and myself. James was cut off on the threshold of what promised to be a splendid practice, having been recently called in to attend the mother of the present Duke of Argyll, MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 15 and being already Professor of Surgery in the institution now called the Andersonian University.” But reverting again to Robert Candlish’s college career, the late Lord Ardmillan has furnished the following valuable and interesting statement :— “T was at Glasgow College with our dear friend Dr. Candlish in 1821 and 1822 in the Greek, Logic, and Moral Philosophy classes. We were intimate and warm friends, and in the Logie class generally sat side by side. Candlish was a keen, eager, earnest student ; very prompt and quick ; and recognised, alike by his professors and _ his fellow-students, as a leader and a youth of power in the class. There were closer and harder students, but his quick working, and his great capacity for grasping ethical and metaphysical reasoning, soon placed him in the front rank in these classes. His essays, and his answers on oral examination in Professor Jardine’s class were much praised by him. In the Moral Philosophy class of Professor Mylne, his power of reasoning and of forcible and impressive writing was yet more fully developed. He wrote in a spirit fearless and free, but always earnest and reverential. “Jn disposition he was impatient, yet persevering ; versatile, yet persistent ; sensitive, and sometimes irritable ; but always kind, manly, generous. I remember how warm and tender was his affection for a cousin named Adam Bogle. I have seen him playing football on the College green with all the intense energy, keenness, and activity which characterised him in the later years of his distinguished life. To me he was always a warm and kind, as he was a dear friend. He was for nearly forty years my pastor, and I owe him more than I can venture to express. Never can I forget our parting, when, shortly before his death, he threw his feeble arms round me and said, ‘Oh, James Craw- ford, we have been friends for fifty years !’ “He and I sat together in the College Hall to hear an eloquent sermon from Dr. Hodgson of Blantyre, on the text, ‘There shall be no night there’ (Rey. xxi. 25). Candlish was delighted by the discourse, which was very suggestive and original, and he used often to bring it to mind and advert to it in conversation. He alluded to it as an old College recollection, when speaking of the prospect of parting then before him, for it was within a few days of his death.” Miss Duncan says that Robert Candlish “was taken very much notice of by Professor Young in the Greek class. Pro- 10 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. fessor Walker also took a great liking to him.” She also tells us of the sensation excited among their friends by his suc- cess in the second year of his course, and by the yet greater success of his cousin Adam Bogle in his first year. She says: —“No one was more elated than the eldest Miss Candlish. She, her mother, and younger sister, and Mrs. Bogle all went on the 1st of May to the College Hall to see the boys get the prizes. It was quite a day to be remembered. Professor Walker called Adam Bogle his star; and a great friendship was kept up long after that with Josiah Walker and the three boys.” Referring toa somewhat later time, Miss Duncan says that Robert Candlish was also a distinguished student in the Logic class, and gained prizes. She adds :—“ He had many young friends always tearing at him. His scarlet college gown was so torn by them, that when the day came for the prizes to be given, there was scarcely a bit of it left; and ‘as an advanced student could not put on a new gown, one had to be borrowed for the occasion. He was such a funny merry wee fellow, it was no wonder. At the same time anything like unfairness or meanness met with his most undisguised indignation.” Mr. John Bogle has furnished Professor Candlish with some reminiscences of his father’s early years, which are not uninteresting. He says— “From my earliest recollection your father was much with my brother Adam and myself both, in summer and on Saturdays during the winter, when we used to take frequent and long walks together, At that time your father,was not at all strong, and rather timid naturally, so that it appeared more remarkable that in after life he should have exhibited so much energy of character and undaunted moral courage in so many trying emergencies. “The first time I have any distinct recollection of seeing your father was when he came up to see us at Old Place, near Blantyre, I think in the summer of 1814 or 1815, when he was much afraid of our watch-dog Trusty, which, in its exuberance of spirits on being let off the chain, upset him in its rough and awkward gambols. After MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 17 my father’s death in 1817 we used to spend our summers generally at Helensburgh, where bathing and climbing hills together, and rambles through the fields, were our daily amusements, if not chief occupations. As I was about two years younger than my brother, while your father was eighteen months older than he, our studies were entirely different, though we could all enjoy reading aloud the Arabian Nights together, and alternately inventing stories after going to bed to amuse ourselves before going to rest. “ Although at the first your father showed great antipathy to sea- bathing, and it was long before he would even dip over the head with- out having hold of our hands, still at the last he so conquered himself as to become as expert a swimmer as any of us, and equally fond of the water. During our college life I well recollect a long walk we took one Saturday, along with Josiah Walker, to New Kilpatrick to climb Dunotter. On our way down we lost sight of each other, and only reunited when we had trudged back to Glasgow, somewhat tired and anxious. I recollect, also, when we spent some months together (en famille) at Newhaven, having gone there by the canal to Grange- mouth, and thence by steamer to Leith, of our tramping off together to. get our first view of Edinburgh Castle, and encountering two quarrel- some fishwives, who had emptied their creels of fish against each other. That summer we climbed Arthur’s Seat along with John Temple, another friend who is gone.” The Rey. Robert Wilson, minister at North Ronaldshay, who became acquainted with Robert Candlish through his cousin Adam Bogle, a class-fellow of the former, says of him— “ While he was undoubtedly a diligent student, yet he was playful in mind, and fond of bodily exercise. He was always distinguished for his logical acumen, and his fertility and versatility in argument. His ingenuity and sharp discrimination often revealed distinctions which, even when stated by him, were not readily perceived by ordinary intellects. In him we observed the exercise of mental power, without the self-consciousness of it. There was a great absence of ambition, so far as could be seen, combined with the manifestation of powers which might have led him in early life to the desire and enjoyment of it. But there was that sort of abandon in his manner which made his associates feel that he did not seek the exercise of control over his fellows, except in the defeat of an intellectual opponent, or in the σ 18 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. right settlement of some special subject. And yet we could not say amidst his self-abnegation and frequent deference to others, that he was devoid of influence. For in his play of intellectual activity he did exercise an unassuming influence, and became a central object of attraction and source of incitement in the circles amidst which he came. “T have mentioned that, while showing mental activity, he was fond of bodily exercise. The latter seemed in some measure a neces- sity of his constitution, and probably was thought by him conducive to the maintenance and increase of mental health and power. Although he did not often draw illustrations from natural objects, yet he had great delight in bold mountain scenery and rural excursions, On one occasion, when we sailed together down the Clyde, he observed what delight it gave him to gaze on the hills which are seen as we approach the Firth of Clyde. He seemed to associate the free mountain breezes with the manly freedom of thought and spirit which characterised the Scottish nation. ““There was one notable excursion during our residence in Helens- burgh in which many took part. As far as I can remember, Mrs. Bogle, her sons and daughters, James Candlish and Robert, Miss Candlish, Mr. Urquhart (now minister of Portpatrick), and myself, formed the company. We started as pedestrians from Helensburgh to visit Ben Lomond and Loch Lomond. It was a most delightful excur- sion, especially from the joyousness of the company and from the grand and beautiful scenery amidst which we passed. These were sunny days, in different senses, and the remembrance of them is very pleasant and fragrant after the lapse of so many years. James Candlish and Robert were the very life of the company. Though all, amidst the buoyancy of health and exuberance of youthful spirits, contributed their quota to the general enjoyment, the two brothers abounded in wit and wisdom. We all slept in an inn at the foot of Ben Lomond, and next morning started early, the ladies being provided with ponies, that we might, if possible, witness the sunrise from the top of the mountain. In this, however, we were disappointed, as the morning proved cloudy and misty. We to some extent surmounted the clouds, having some beneath us. When we had advanced considerably up the hill, Robert Candlish and myself by mutual consent started in a race to the summit. As he gazed around on the panorama of hills, loch, and valleys and islands now visible, the view seemed to fill him with awe, and he could not help exclaiming in rapture on the superbness of the scene,” MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 19 Professor Candlish furnishes this note as to his father’s love of scenery :— “Tn reference to his early visits to the country, he used to say that the view at Ardentinny on Loch Long was what first gave him an idea of beauty of scenery. That must have been very early, and, ever after he observed and enjoyed the beauties of nature in all kinds of scenery more than any one else I ever knew, I remember long ago, in the summers of 1847-8-9, or thereabouts, at Burntisland, Musselburgh, and North Berwick, how he delighted to take me out with him on long walks, and climb hills to get views of the country, and when, later, in 1855 and following summers, we went to the West Coast, he enjoyed renewing his acquaintance with the scenes of his old holidays, and resuming the exercise of rowing and fishing, of which he had been so fond.” To these early recollections of intimate friends I cannot but add those of the Rev. Andrew Urquhart. Take this brief note, first of all, regarding bodily exercise, as cognate to some already given. In a letter to Professor Candlish Mr. Urquhart says— “Tn the freshness of his life your father was fond of some athletic exercises, and excelled in them. I can attest his expertness in swim- ming and rowing. His skill in the latter was acquired chiefly at Eton ; and, at least to me, it appeared very remarkable—probably all the more remarkable that I had once a pretty strong pull against him on the lake of Lochnaw, and was utterly discomfited and subdued.” In a letter to Professor Candlish we have also from Mr. Urquhart this gratifying testimony as to Robert Candlish’s personal character. It is dated “Free Church Manse, Portpatrick, 20th June 1874. “ My dear Sir—You are aware that my friendship with your father, originating in hereditary associations, was from first to last a personal and private friendship. All the more I feel confidence in expressing my belief that from very early years, and before I knew him, he had walked with God in the spirit of adoption. For all my recollections of him from the first, when I became acquainted with him as a fellow- student of the second year at Glasgow College, are associated with the impressions of a spirituality, which, in no way demonstrative, was so 20 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. dominant and habitual as to be suggestive of its having grown up with him from his childhood, and of its being at once indispensable and familiar to him as the breath of life. “J think it was during our first summer holidays, that for some weeks we slept in adjoining beds in one of the attic rooms of my father’s manse. AndI cannot forget the simple earnestness with which, in the evenings, he composed himself to his devotions ere we went to rest, after days of free and joyous sports and rambling. His hearty and healthful sympathy with all the interests of human life, even the most trivial, seemed even then to harmonise wondrously with the so- lemnity of communion with God, so as to impress me with a deep sense of the thoroughness of his piety, whilst the essential soundness of the principles which were vital in his faith was evidenced by his quiet relish for everything that savoured of gospel truth. Considering his intense dislike of all pretentiousness and the downright earnestness of his character, I can have no doubt as to the accuracy of the general impressions to which I have referred. And that they were the impres- sions of my earliest intercourse with him, I remember as distinctly as I remember anything in my personal history. “ During more than fifty years afterwards I had brotherly correspond- ence with him in joys and sorrows on both sides, and enjoyed many precious opportunities of private fellowship with him in almost every conceivable variety of circumstances. Amidst the anxious struggles of his ecclesiastical life I founda frequent home by his fireside in Edinburgh, just as before in his mother’s house in Glasgow in our College years, When he much needed recreation, we scrambled over the Giant’s Cause- way and the cliffs in the north of Ireland, and knelt together to implore a blessing on Ireland and its people. I travelled with him in my gig from manse to manse in Galloway for a week, preparatory to the Con- vocation in 1842. He has sat with me by the fireside of my manse in Portpatrick, when I was soon to leave it. And in the quiet shade of my garden we have conversed on the prospects and interests of Chris- tian society in the world. But on a review of all such intercourse I can remember no sensible change, except in the deepening and widen- ing of the impressions of my earliest acquaintance with him, when, as lads of fifteen years, we rambled over the hills of Ayrshire, or waded, fishing for pike, in Kilbirnie Loch early on the summer mornings, I doubt not there may have been points in his experience after he left College, to which he might have referred as dates of new life in the sense in which we often speak thus, when we would mark strongly the effect of light thrown upon saving truth from a new point of view, MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 21 revealing it with unwonted clearness, or in contrast with deceitful worldly fashions, or in its opposition to the subtlety of nature’s delu- sions, and thus deepening beyond all power of expression our percep- tions of its practical power and infinite preciousness. I have some general remembrances of conversation with him in our walks after he returned from Eton, which amount pretty nearly to what I have sug- gested as possibly the right construction of any strong expressions which he may have used either in speaking or writing of his experience when he was there. However remarkable the advancement may have been at some particular stages in the development of his spiritual life, I am quite sure he was not the man who could ever mean to ignore the gra- cious dealings of God with him in his earlier days. And I never can think of him otherwise than as one who was very early ‘ planted in the house of the Lord” What is stated in the foregoing letter of Mr. Urquhart does not seem to be at all inconsistent with what Mr. Bell records concerning a conversation he had with Robert Cand- lish’s mother, as to a great spiritual change in his character. It is by no means uncommon in men’s spiritual history that in their progress Zionward they experience seasons of deep depression, followed by great light and enlargement; and at Eton Robert Candlish seems to have had such experience. Mr. Bell says— “What I regard as the most interesting and important conversation I had with Mrs. Candlish, was one which bore reference to the period which her son spent in England when he acted as tutor to Sir Hugh H. Campbell, Bart., of Marchmont, then a young man at Eton. It would appear that when there, at a distance from home, and apparently less favourably placed in respect to religious privileges, Mr. Candlish came under deep spiritual anxiety. He wrote to his mother for advice and guidance, and she acted, in the circumstances, with great discernment and enlightened wisdom. ‘I just told him,’ her words to the best of my recollection were, ‘ Robert, I cannot venture to solve the doubts and difficulties that occur to a mind like yours. My advice is to go to your Bible, and pray to the Lord for light, and you will get it?” We have seen that Robert Candlish was a favourite of the professors under whom he studied, as such a successful student deserved to be; and the regard was mutual. He Zn MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. held in high esteem especially Walker (Latin), Young (Greek), and Jardine (Logic). His fellow-students must have recog- nised the closeness of his affinity to the Professor of Greek, who bore among them the cognomen of Cockie Young, and Robert Candlish was designated Little Cockie. Of this pro- fessor, Dr. Candlish, writing in 1870, says — “Professor Young was no ordinary man; an enthusiast in Greek litera- ture, a singularly acute critic and lecturer. I attended his class two sessions. During the third year of my attendance, when I was student of Logic under Professor Jardine, Professor Young died very suddenly.” Of the theological professors, Stevenson M‘Gill was the one he respected most, and got most good from; but he often spoke of the inadequacy of the theological training of those days. Even M‘Gill mentioned no books to the students, and so left them quite at sea in the prosecution of their studies. After leaving College, Robert Candlish, besides Barrow, studied Horsley’s works with great admiration. His letters will help yet farther to show us what his occu- pations were, and how he looked upon things, in these College days. The earliest letter of his of which I am in possession is without date, and is addressed to Mr. Andrew Urquhart. It must have been written from Helensburgh in the summer of 1821 or 1822. In it, among other things, he says— “T have been so much occupied hitherto, and have made so very little progress in the various studies which I intended to pursue, and, moreover, I have the prospect of being yet so much engaged in various plans of amusement which are here formed, that I am very much afraid it will not be in my power to do myself the pleasure of seeing you this summer, Be assured that nothing could give me more pleasure than to spend a few days with you if I could. My visit last year was too agreeable not to produce a desire of repeating it, and nothing but the reason I have already given could prevent me availing myself of your kind invitation to do so. “We had Josiah Walker with us for a week some time ago, and MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 23 you may be assured that when three (Adam Bogle, or his brother James, must have been the third) such diligent geniuses met there would be something unusually grand forthcoming. But, lo! we spent our whole time in rambling among the fields, climbing hills, and other rural occu- pations. The only books, I believe, we read were Shakspeare’s plays, and this, too, only when we could get nothing else to do.” Our next letter, also addressed to Mr. Urquhart, is dated 15th September 1823. I give a brief extract from it :— “You say you have not heard of or from Josiah (Walker) this summer, I suppose his botanical studies occupy him too much to allow him time for writing ; at least, that seems to be the case with respect to his correspondence with Adam (Bogle), for I have had no epistolary correspondence with him this summer, owing as he says to my laziness, but as I affirm to his. He attended Dr. Hooker (Professor of Botany) zealously during his whole course, and took a trip with him to the Highlands for a week, with about twenty more students. During the jaunt he caught a cold by too much exposure, which adhered to him slightly all the rest of the summer, Indeed, when I was at Glasgow a month ago, he was confined to the house. But I believe he is now better. He was down visiting us for a fortnight in the middle of sum- mer, when, besides enjoying plenty of wind and rain, as we have done all summer, he made some progress in his favourite study, along with Adam and James, who were visiting us at the same time. We were obliged to snatch hasty walks, in the intervals between the showers, when we generally gathered as many plants as served us to botanise upon till I (and even Adam sometimes, though one of the zealots) was quite tired out.” The following extract is from a letter to Mr. Urquhart, dated 27th May 1824 :— “Tord Byron’s death is stale now. I hope your tears for the event are now dried up, and that you have sacrificed largely to Melpomene (is that the right name ἢ on the sad occasion. It seems to have given the newspaper bards something to do. I wonder how the cause of Greece will come on without his lordship’s powerful aid. Yow will be happy to hear of Dr. M‘Farlane’s success in the General Assembly.’ 1 The question raised in the Assembly was whether Dr. M‘Farlane should be allowed to hold the two offices of Minister of the High Church, and Prin- cipal of the University of Glasgow. 24 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. The majority, I believe, was pretty large. I have not yet seen any report of the speeches, which, doubtless, were very acute, and brilliant, and persuasive, and so on ; but I suppose might just as well have been delivered after as before the voting ; for it is not likely any of the members went with the same impartial, undecided mind as Mr. Smyth, of .St. George’s, carried with him to the Presbytery. In fact, I am of opinion, that the reverend body could have listened with far more calmness, and, of course, with far more delight, to the extraordinary eloquence of the speakers, had the important business of voting first been off their mind. ’Tis a pity that oratory should be so cruelly wasted as it generally is in such discussions. I wonder if any decisive measures will be taken for the abolition of pluralities, a system so con- trary to the spirit and welfare of our National Church. Have not many of Dr. M‘Farlane’s supporters, after a sort, pledged themselves to make the attempt? But the usual objection will still recur that a university which cannot maintain itself must depend for support on the funds of another institution, and that the interests of the Church, and of religion perhaps, must be sacrificed to maintain the grandeur of Edinburgh College. “Mrs, Bogle went to Helensburgh last week to spend the summer. Miss Bogle and my sister have not yet returned from London, but we expect them in the middle of next month. Botany and the ponies, I believe, are to constitute the standard amusements of the season, for Adam’s zeal is not yet cooled, and riding is an employment in which both he and John are too eager to indulge to allow their steeds much idleness. I propose to join them when the Grammar School vacation leaves me entirely at liberty ; but previously I hope to have the plea- sure of seeing you at Kilbirnie for a day or two. I hope you are studying Hebrew as diligently as you intended. I have read five psalms since the first of May. Is not that most wonderful ?” In a playful letter to Mr. Urquhart, dated 12th August 1824, under the date he, writes— “Don’t you pity the poor birds to-day?” And then, afterwards, he says :—“I hope your zeal in the study of Latin! Greek !! He- brew!!! and Prideaux!!!! remains unabated, and that your lecture and exegesis bear testimony to the reality of your good intentions. I hope, moreover, that the botanical mania you seemed afraid of has passed over without any very serious injury to yourself or your neigh- bours, for madness is always catching. The record of my studies is MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 25 easily given. Since I left you I have spent two months at Helens- burgh, which passed like the baseless fabric of a vision, and left not a trace behind of zeal or diligence in any one of the various occupations to which I am rejoiced to see you have so diligently devoted yourself. I came to town on the 2d of this month, and have now got the length of intending to reform.” In a letter to Mr. Urquhart, 15th July 1825, he refers his friend to sources of information on the subject of oratory -— “On the subject which you mention I remember reading a very good essay in the Edinburgh Review last year. I will send the number if it is in (the library), and likewise Hume. Of course you have Blair’s Lectures. The subject is discussed there very concisely and distinctly. In some of Cicero’s rhetorical works (particularly the Claris Oratoribus), and in the Dialogue (De Causis Corrupte Eloquentiw) attributed. to Tacitus or Quinctilian, I suspect you will find something to your pur- pose—for of the causes which they assign for the decline of oratory among the ancients, some, I daresay, you will find account in part for the inferiority of the moderns.” In a letter to Mr. Urquhart, dated Glasgow, 24th August 1826, he says— “How you must have enjoyed this beautiful summer! I have often wished to be with you, but have been constantly in town, except being at Helensburgh pretty frequently on Saturdays and Sundays, And yet, though I have been thus constantly resident in this ‘ quiet retreat of learning, I have not been at all busy in the way of study, and my reading in Divinity and Church History has not at all advanced. I do believe, although the opinion is paradoxical, that the country is the best place for study in the summer. One is not so completely suffo- cated and stupefied by the heat, nor so constantly tantalised by the distant prospect, or what is nearly as bad, the conception of green fields and mighty rivers (like the Garnock at Kilbirnie), I suppose you have now got on pretty far in your perusal of Greek oratory, and in your professional and miscellaneous reading. Your letters at least intimated a zealous commencement. Why did you select Isocrates to translate, and not him whose thunders, etc.? And why did you pronounce such a eulogium on Gr. Penn? 1 have not read the book, but from a few passages I saw, and from some extracts I met with in a review, I should be inclined to call him one of the most absurd and speculative of all 26 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. the speculative geologists. Is not the very name of Mosaical geology enough to condemn him? Is there any geology at all in Moses? or are his works intended to teach us matters of science? Nothing seems to me more absurd and dangerous than to implicate Revelation at all in disputes on subjects not in the least connected with religion, and on subjects, moreover, when speaking on which the Scriptures must have accommodated themselves to the opinions and language of the day, and on which, in fact, they can scarcely with any propriety be said to have advocated any theory at all. Our society lasted for nearly three months, It consisted of Buchanan, Dowie, Wilson, Clow, Martin, and myself. It was dissolved because Dowie, Wilson, and Buchanan were all going away. Dowie has gone to a family near Edinburgh, and Buchanan is just going to be licensed. Wilson is at Helensburgh. By the by, would it not be a good plan to secure, if possible, the Ram’s Horn (now St. David’s) Church for winter? Give me your authority (as Sec.), and mention the highest rate at which we should pay for it. The Chemical Society, I suppose you know, has lost Mr. Graham (afterwards Sir Thomas Graham, Master of the Mint), its chief prop since Johnson left it. Will it survive the loss? Vix aut ne vix quidem. Graham is adorning a similar institu- tion in Edinburgh. “We (i.e. Mrs. Bogle, Miss Bogle, Miss J. Bogle, Miss E. Candlish, Messrs. Bogle, Mr. Wilson, my brother, and myself (was not that a fine party ?), were at Ben Lomond one Saturday lately, and all except Mrs. Β. at the top of it. The morning was rather hazy, but we had a very fine view of the surrounding hills. “You ask in one of your letters what I thought of the General - Assembly. There was much more order and far less bickering than I was led to expect, but the business was not very interesting, and speak- ing but middling. On the plurality question the Lord Justice-Clerk or the Lord President (I forget just now which) made a very dogmatic and imposing speech against the legislative powers of the Church, and the fallacy of his argument was most ably and clearly answered by Moncreiff in certainly the best speech I heard. Dr. Cook made a most admirable and satisfactory speech against pluralities, but ‘what a lame and impotent conclusion.” . . . On the Bracadale case the impression was very strong in favour of M‘Leod, but I rather think now, though I confess I did not think then, that the Moderates were right. What an admirable report Principal Baird gave of the scheme for educating the Highlands and Islands, I particularly admired Principal Nicol. The show of moderation, whether sincere or politic, and his constant MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 27 good humour and desire to keep the peace, are very prepossessing. On almost every question that was not very important, he made a sort of compromise, and satisfied both parties.” This is the latest letter of Robert Candlish which we have during the currency of his College course, extending from 1818 to 1826. It was the period of a great crisis in the religious and ecclesiastical history of Scotland. There were three powerful influences which then began to operate, that were destined in their issues to produce mighty unforeseen changes, and which have given shape to the state of things as now found among us. They could not fail to affect a nature so susceptible as that of Robert Candlish, whose mind was always open to accept and adopt what was good and true, and to help it forward with all his energy. One of these influences, and that by no means the least powerful, although operating in a noiseless and unseen way, was the publication of Dr. M‘Crie’s Lives of Knox and Melville, the former in 1811, and the latter in 1819. These works had an extensive circulation, and especially among the class of men who mould the character of the age in which they live. They carried the mind back to Reformation views and principles, and were a very effective protest against the Moderatism which had so long cramped and stifled the religious life of Scotland. As they greatly helped to awaken the questions which soon came to be agitated, and which led to the separation of the Free Church from the State, so they also shed the clearest light upon these. questions, and made the way plain enough to all who cherished the principles of the Reformation. To Dr. M‘Crie more than to any other we owe it that so many of the people of Scotland clearly appre- hended the doctrine of the Church’s autonomy, and recognised her obligation to act out what she had ascertained to be the will of her great living Head irrespective of what secular and civil authorities might do and determine. 28 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. Another of the influences to which I have adverted was wielded by Dr. Andrew Thomson, whose place in the Church Robert Candlish was soon destined to fill, By means of the Christian Instructor he was to a large extent working on the same lines as Dr. M‘Crie, while he was at the same time encouraging and helping forward every evangelical movement. But he effected still more by his living voice and energy. Being inducted in 1814 as the first minister of St. George’s Church, Edinburgh, his influence soon began to be felt among the élite of the city, as respects culture and intellectual power. Edinburgh at that time had many eminent citizens, and some whose fame was world-wide; but Andrew Thomson soon placed himself in the front rank of them all. He was felt as a power not only, perhaps not even chiefly, in the pulpit; but as a public speaker he was unrivalled in versatility and eloquence. He could confront and defeat the ablest members of the Bar. Bold and uncompromising in word and deed, if he made some enemies he secured the affection and venerated adherence of many friends. When he began his ministry the tone of Edinburgh society was decidedly cold towards religion, and tending very much towards infidelity—a tendency mightily strengthened by the Edinburgh Reviewers. It was Andrew Thomson chiefly who turned the tide, and obtained respect at least for evangelical religion on the Bench and at the Bar, and among the medical profession. He was the means gradually but very effectually of producing a great and blessed revolution in the character of Edinburgh society. Nor was it in Edinburgh alone that his influence was felt. The Apocrypha controversy made him known all over Scot- land, for he went everywhere advocating a pure and unadul- terated Bible with wondrous eloquence and success. And, whatever intemperance may have characterised the con- troversy at some of its stages, we owe it very much to Andrew Thomson that the views so extensively prevail which are now MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 29 held in Scotland regarding the inspiration and the sole and supreme authority of the Word of God as the rule of faith and manners. ‘This was, perhaps, the greatest permanent service he rendered to the Church and to the country. The third, but by no means the least influential power which had begun towork in Robert Candlish’s student days, was Dr. Chalmers, who began his ministry in Glasgow in 1815, and in which he continued till 1823. He was at once recog- nised as the greatest preacher of his time, and attracted great multitudes to hear him—not a few of whom were savingly impressed, and became from that time and afterwards the leaders and promoters of every philanthropic work. But it was not his pulpit ministrations nor his published writings which were the most valuable contribution of Dr. Chalmers towards the moral and spiritual wellbeing of his countrymen and of mankind at large; it was rather the evangelistic bent he gave to the energies of the Church. Dr. Chalmers still lives in the work of Church extension, and in the methods he devised for carrying it forward. His aim was not the erection of a place of worship, and to set open a door for the entrance of such as might be attracted to it by the ministrations of the pulpit; but to provide an agency to carry the gospel to the homes of the people within a limited territory, and to “compel them to come in.” This was the peculiar life work of that great orator and practical philanthropist. Thus there were three great powers in those days simul- taneously at work in somewhat distinct departments, which largely moulded the future history of the Church and country. Dr. Chalmers led the way in the great evangelistic move- ments which so happily characterise the present time. Dr. Thomson awakened a new interest in the Bible, as the alone authoritative guide of what the Church and individual men ought to believe and to do. Dr. M‘Crie, by his publications, created a new era in ecclesiastical affairs. 30 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. It was under such influences as these that the College career of Robert Candlish was carried on and came to an end. He personally enjoyed the ministrations of Dr. Chalmers, and scarcely less those of his distinguished assistant Edward Irving, although the latter was then far from being generally popular. But Robert Candlish and a few of his fellow- students were among Irving’s regular hearers, CHAPTER If Tutor at Eton—Correspondence—Licensed as a probationer—Assistant in St. Andrew’s Church, Glasgow—Assistant at Bonhill—Proposal to go to Canada — Characteristics of Mr. Gregor of Bonhill— Assistant in St. George’s, Edinburgh, As has been already stated, Robert Candlish’s fourth session at the Divinity Hall was a partial one, that is, while he was enrolled as a student for that session, he did not attend the class. This was a course very generally followed by students of theology at that period. The cases, indeed, were rather exceptional in which attendance was given during the whole four years over which the curriculum extended. Attendance on the classes, in many instances, was almost wholly dispensed with; but when this happened the rules of the Church pro- vided that five years must elapse from the time of entering the Hall before the student could be licensed to preach the gospel. In the case of Robert Candlish there was a special reason for bringing his studies at the Hall so suddenly to an end. Miss Duncan says—“ After he had entered the Divinity Hall a letter came to some of the Professors asking them to send the most able young man they could recommend to go to Eton as tutor to Sir Hugh Hume Campbell of Marchmont. Mr. Candlish was asked to undertake the charge, and went.” This was at the end of 1826. Miss Duncan 8669 --- “1 remember hearing some of his letters to his sister read at home, expressing how much overwhelmed he felt at being placed among so many great doctors and bigwigs. He felt very small indeed.” 32 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. The earliest of his letters from Eton which has been pre- served is dated 8th May 1827, and is addressed to his old friend Mr. Urquhart. In it he says— “ During the first half of my stay here (for you must know the year at Eton contains three halves) you may conceive that among per- fect strangers, and without much business, I felt dull enough. In fact, having never been from home before, I had no clear idea of the horrors of a solitary life in lodgings, and I felt the change from the society of friends and relations the more, because I did not calculate on feeling it much. I have now got, in some degree, accustomed to my situation, and as the summer has now arrived there will be more amusement and means of killing time. There are nearly thirty tutors here, some Fellows of Cambridge, and many of them clergymen. They are, | think, in general, very pleasant men ; but as there is no common pursuit or engagement to bring them frequently together, or make them mix with one another, a considerable time must elapse before a stranger can become intimate with any of them. Most of them called upon me on my first arrival, but you are aware that an acquaintance— at least a familiar acquaintance—is not soon formed merely by calling. There is a boating club here, which during the summer goes regularly a few miles up the river to an island, where an hour or two is spent in playing at quoits or some other game. As I shall join the club, I expect by this means to be led to mix more with my fellow tutors, and this, besides the pleasure of the exercise, will be an advantage. But still I miss, and shall, I fear, continue to miss, some one engaged in the same studies as myself, with whom I can communicate the remarks and feelings that occur in the course of reading and thinking. I have felt the want of a friend, and one advantage of my present absence from home is that it will make me value the advantages of friendship more when I can again enjoy them. Correspondence by letter, how- ever regular and frequent, is but a sorry substitute for conversation and personal intercourse, “ By means of a news-room and a book club we have a very com- fortable supply of newspapers, magazines, and new books, but there is no library where old books that one may want to see can be procured. This obliges me to incur considerable expense in purchasing books on any particular subject. The libraries in our college are a very great advantage, and fully worth all the money which we used to murmur at being forced to contribute. “You perhaps expect from me a full account of the system of MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 33 education pursued here, but I am a shocking hand at description, I confess my prejudices in favour of our Scotch system have not been much diminished by an acquaintance with Eton. There is not much work done here. In a regular week there would be a good many verses written, and a good deal of Latin and Greek construed and transmitted to memory, but since I came there has not been a single regular week. What with saints’ days (for in regarding saints’ days they are very orthodox), founders’ days, bishops’ days, etc., they have had one or two holidays, besides half-holidays, every week, in conse- quence of which they get off half of their verses, as well as no small portion of their lessons. I do not see the benefit of their committing to memory so much as they do, more especially as they do not commit it perfectly ; and I think they read too many authors at the same time. They go to church twice every whole holiday, and once every half, so that you may believe they are not taught to value it much. By means of frequent absences (a technical word), what we mean by calling the catalogue, they are effectually kept from going very far astray, and they are all locked up at dusk. But then there are so many in a house, and they are left so much to themselves, that they can hardly avoid idleness and mischief. In fact, a boy must possess very extraordinary studiousness if he have the wish, and still more extraordinary firmness, if he have the power, to resist the inroads of boisterous and noisy companions into his study. I omit to notice, τ though they are considerable, the interruptions to which the junior boys are subject from fagging. Of course I speak of those only who have not private tutors ; but out of nearly 600 only about 50 have that advantage. Upon the whole, I cannot avoid preferring that mix- ture of public instruction and domestic superintendence which forms the system of our Universities. A boy is much more likely to do good when he spends his evenings with his friends, or with those whom his friends have appointed, than when he is exposed to the temptations of idle companions. “1 have dined once with the Provost, and been once or twice at the house of one of the (word torn off). They live in splendid style— have fine houses, good salaries, and nothing to do with the school. The masters, on the other hand, though well paid, have a great deal to do. They not only teach publicly, but have private pupils, who con- strue to them their lessons, etc., before going to school. “Tf I had room I would expatiate upon the beauties of the country here. The hawthorn is just budding. How horrid a town life in summer is! When do you take flight ?” D 34 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. This was evidently meant to be the end of the letter, but finding a small vacant space, the writer starts afresh, and then writes across the pages, already filled :— “There is but one Scotchman here besides myself among the tutors—John Campbell, a student of Glasgow College, and a nephew of T. Hunter. Even he has got a degree at Oxford, I believe I am at present the only tutor who has not studied at one of the English Universities. Campbell leaves this at Midsummer, and goes to the English Bar, “T am glad you are going on trials. Whether I shall get to Scotland this summer long enough to get over my examination I know not. I hope I may, but there is no great hurry. I hope, for the credit of the Assembly, they will not be so selfish as to petition for the relief of Presbyterian Dissenters alone from the Test Act. Why not be con- sistent, and make the petition general? I wish they would add to it one for Catholic Emancipation. What a fine example of Christian charity and liberality would our Church then hold out to other churches, But I fear we are still so bigoted as to wish only those of our own sect to enjoy perfect freedom and to be delivered from all civil disabilities. Why will Churchmen always be behind their fellow- citizens in learning to advocate the cause of religious freedom ? I know you will not assent to these observations, but I know also that you will excuse them, What has moved the Irvine Presbytery to oppose Patronage? The law, as it is now administered, undoubtedly requires revision. But should Patronage be altogether abolished? I think the sale of it should be rendered illegal. I mean that it should be attached to the land, and, if possible, I should like to see some’ more effectual check than there is at present on the part of the people upon its abuse. “ Do write very soon. You have no idea how acceptable a letter from Scotland, and particularly from you, is. I want you to give me an account of the proceedings of the Assembly. I shall get the news- papers sent to me, but you can tell me your thoughts on the different subjects—the state of parties and of public feeling, and sundry other things, which a newspaper report cannot take notice of.” Our next letter, also to Mr. Urquhart, is dated Glasgow, 18th August. In it he says— “1 left Eton on Monday the 30th July, for the summer vacation, without any expectation of visiting Scotland ; but as my pupil was to MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D, 35 go with his aunt to visit the south coast of England, and as my ser- vices were not required, I embarked on Wednesday and reached Glas- gow on Saturday. I lost no time in applying to the members of Pres- bytery that my examination might be got over, The Committee agreed to dispense with the usual forms in some degree, They examined me last Thursday, and are to report to the Presbytery in September, I hope, therefore, to get over the preliminary business then, so as to pass the spring Synod, as it is now too late for the autumn Synod.” Our next letter is from Eton, dated 2d October 1827, and is addressed to Mr, Robert Wilson :— “T had set apart Saturday evening for the task (of reprimanding him for delay in writing), and you were saved merely by the arrival of the sixth volume of Napoleon’s life, which volume, by the by, I think almost the most interesting of those which I have read. It treats of the affairs of the Peninsular war. One great excellence of the volume, and, indeed, of the whole work, is the amazing distinctness with which Sir Walter details the military transactions, I cannot say that I ever understood clearly the description of a battle before reading his. “ But this,’ in the words of the Rev. John Muir,! after some tremendous cut at the Papists or our sister Church, ‘ this by the way,’ “T was glad to hear that Dowie? got on so well in Mr. Marshall’s3 I hope he made as good an appearance last Sunday. You did not tell me how he looked in the pulpit ; not so very juvenile, I suppose, as we anticipated, Have you heard, by any means, what sort of impression he has made among the critics 7 If so, be sure to let me know when you write, You promised to tell me what arrangements were made or likely to be made as to Buchanan’s and Dowie’s present situations, Dowie, I suppose, will go to Home Drummond’s family ; but who is to succeed Dowie ? You should apply yourself, ὑ.6, if it be a good situation, for really I know nothing about it. I suppose you will have seen these two friends pretty often since they arrived at Glasgow, I hope Buchanan? is pleased with his election at Rosslyn. He has got a beautiful place to 1 Mr. Muir was minister of St. James’s, Glasgow, and was notably anti- popish and anti-prelatic, 2 Mr. Dowie became minister of Dryfesdale. 3 Mr, Marshall was then minister of Outer High Church, Glasgow, after- wards translated to Tolbooth Church, Edinburgh. Before the Disruption he became Episcopalian, and a minister of the Church of England. 4 Afterwards minister of North Leith, then of High Church, Edinburgh, and finally Professor of Systematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh, 36 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D, reside in, and his hearers, I suppose, will give him a cordial reception. Has he been preaching in Glasgow or the neighbourhood ? “You will, doubtless, expect some account of my voyage, and of my present occupations in this place of exile. I left Greenock soon after you went off in the Goddess of Beauty, but accident obliged the vessel to return before she had-reached Gourock. I made a very hasty visit to Helensburgh, and then sauntered about Greenock very discon- solate, as you may suppose, till the evening, when matters were again put in order for sailing. We had a tedious and stormy passage, and did not reach Liverpool till Wednesday forenoon, I admired the town and the docks, and on Thursday morning set out for London, The day was very fine, and I do not think I ever rode through a more beautiful country. The scenery in Cheshire and Staffordshire is par- ticularly rich, and so varied that almost every mile gives you a total change of prospect. I reached London on Friday, and came to Eton on Saturday. I found my solitude and retirement dull enough, but I am again getting somewhat reconciled to my fate. Since I returned I have joined a society formed here among the masters and tutors for playing at fives men’ (to use Professor Mylne’s phrase), and so I thought at first ; but in England these things are more common than with us. It is a good exercise, and when I become more experienced I shall like the game, I think,. I am reading just now with very great pleasure, Campbell on the Gospels, It has given me quite new ideas of the critical study of the Scriptures, I am also reading, with much interest, the Life of Andrew Melville, though I cannot help smiling sometimes at M‘Crie’s almost Quixotic admiration of the Reformers. But he vindicates their conduct most powerfully.” a strange amusement, you will think, for ‘ bearded In another letter to Mr. Wilson from Eton, dated 29th October, he says— “Tf I were disposed to be polemical, I would take up the cudgels against you concerning Dr. Chalmers, as I do not agree with you as to the evanescent nature of the effects of his oratory. In fact, they seem to me as lasting as the impressions made by any oratory can be. But it may be questioned whether, if the decision had not immediately fol- lowed his speeches, Demosthenes himself could have swayed the Athenians as he did, As to your quotation from the graphic Johnson, it seems to me one of those commonplaces which the mighty moralist delighted to clothe in sesquipedalian words and monotonous periods, and I. do not see that it applies to the Doctor more than to any other MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. or orator. From Dr. Chalmers one naturally passes to the Divinity Chair at Edinburgh. I saw, to my no small satisfaction, in an Oxford news- paper (a strange channel, you will say, for such a piece of news), that old Dr. Ritchie had at last (words torn off) by the fat slumberers of the Church to resign. Suppose Dr. C. succeeds him, pray how are the ‘temporalities of the see’ to be arranged? The paltry income of the professorship cannot be made up to him by a comfortable Church ; so, what is to be done? Or is the chair to fall again into the lazy hands of a pluralist ? μὴ γένοιτο Is it true that the Doctor refused Sir H. Moncreiff’s church ? And has Paul got it by the wishes of the heritors and (word torn off)? You see I mean to draw largely upon you for clerical and academic news, “From the general tenor of this epistle you must long ago have discovered that I have nothing to say. There is, I believe, a sort of lethargic influence in the very air of this dull place. At least I have of late been abominably lazy and stupid. I am endeavouring to rub up my Hebrew a little, and have agreed to take lessons from a little Italian Jew, who professes to teach the language here. But as his terms are none of the lowest I shall rest satisfied with a very few interviews with him, and principally wish to learn the use of points. I often wish I had some discourses to write, or some ponderous tome on divinity that I was forced to study. I might then be roused from my indolence. However, though shamefully idle at present, I console myself by visions of future diligence, and make large promises to my conscience. “T envy you the locality of your situation. I have got a river here, but no fine hills. You know I admire hills, ‘free as the moun- tain breeze that whistles,’ ἢ This is our last letter from Eton, and we have no further knowledge of Robert Candlish’s life there. We know, from a family register which he kept, that, in prosecution of his pur- pose to obtain license as a preacher, and, I. suppose, availing himself of the summer vacation at Eton, he was licensed by the Presbytery ‘of Glasgow, 6th August 1828. In the year following, as we have seen, he was present at the death of his brother in Glasgow.’ In the same year he became assist- ant in St. Andrew’s Church, Glasgow, to Dr. Gavin Gibb, who, besides being Professor of Hebrew in the University, 1 * Fratrem unicum optimum.” Dr. Candlish’s Family Register. 38 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. was also the minister of that charge. He did not owe this appointment to any sympathy with Dr. Gibb’s views, but, as Mr. Urquhart informs us, to the fact that Dr. Gibb and Mr. Candlish’s father had been College friends. I have already given Mr. Walker's estimate of his pulpit work in St. Andrew’s Church. But Miss Duncan informs us that she often heard, through his mother, that he did not enjoy preaching for Dr. Gibb in St. Andrew’s. He said it hung lke a cold blanket about his neck. It is not to be inferred from this that he disliked the work of preaching the gospel. But his position was a very trying one, and especially to a man who had such a lofty estimate of what sermons ought to be. He had only recently been licensed, and was yet a youth in his twenty- third year, and the whole charge of a city congregation, in- cluding the preaching of two sermons every Sabbath, was devolved upon him. Besides he had practically become the minister of a congregation which had been accustomed to a very Moderate type of preaching, and who could hardly be expected to appreciate sermons of sucha kind as Mr. Candlish could not but deliver to them. He then prepared and deli- vered, in the ordinary course of his duty, some of those ser- mons that afterwards made a profound impression in St. George’s, Edinburgh, and established his fame as a preacher. Amid the peculiar difficulties of his position it must have been a great comfort and support to him to have the com- panionship and friendship of the Rev. David Welsh, who was at that time minister of St. David’s, and who frequently invited him to preach to his congregation. This friendship was renewed with increased warmth and intimacy when Dr. Welsh, who had become Professor of Church History in Edin- burgh University, was one of Mr. Candlish’s elders in St. George’s, and continued unbroken till the death of Dr. Welsh in 1845. His friendships with other Glasgow ministers, con- tracted at a somewhat later date, were all of a very intimate MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. | 39 and endearing kind, and life-long in their duration. Among these friends may be reckoned Dr. Smyth of St. George’s, Dr. Henderson of St. Enoch’s, and Dr. Robert Buchanan of the Tron Church. The following lettter, addressed to Mr. Andrew Urquhart in February 1831, will help to indicate his views and feelings at this time. He says— “Observing in the Herald of yesterday Dowie’s appointment to the chapel at Dumfries, it occurred to me that you might have no objection to his situation as Dr. Buchanan’s assistant.’ I accordingly made application to his (Dr. B.’s) nephew, Dr. Andrew Buchanan, the result of which application is now at your service. You will see, of course, that there is no time to be lost. As it is, it is perhaps too late, though Dr. Buchanan’s friends here have heard of no person ‘likely to be chosen. Perhaps you may not think it worth your while to stir in the matter, though it seems to me, on some accounts, a de- sirable situation. Dowie’s allowance was, I believe, liberal, and it is only half-duty in the preaching department. The old Doctor, to be sure, is said to be a little peculiar in his temper. But then his good word goes a great way, evangelically ; and the fame of having assisted him has already obtained for several the odour of sanctity, and its due reward. You are not like poor unhappy me, shut out by irreversible decree of fate from what, in these days, is the high and sure road to preferment. You don’t read—you don’t preach in (very) Moderate pulpits. You are already known as a champion of orthodoxy. You are a very amiable person, and just the man for Dr. Buchanan. So, make his acquaintance by all means, and take your chance. As long as your pupils continue in Edinburgh the two occupations of teaching and preaching might not be incompatible. But I forgot. Pluralities avaunt! You see how one degenerates in a contagious climate. ‘ Jile ego qui quondam, ete. The less good, however, is without scruple to be sacrificed to the greater. On the whole, I thought it advisable to give you the opportunity ; and if you should not choose to take advantage of it, it is but a double postage to you. I would advise you, however, to call upon the old gentleman, at all events, immedi- ately on receiving this. It can do no harm. If you come through to 1 Dr. Buchanan was minister of Canongate, Edinburgh, which is a col- legiate charge. 40 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. Greenock I shall, of course, expect to see you; if not, write and tell me how the matter stands. Perhaps I might be of some further use to you in getting certificates or letters of recommendation from this quarter by way of subsidiary force. Let me know. “Dr. Thomson’s death must have created ἃ great sensation in Edinburgh.t He will be much missed by the Church. It is lament- able to think of so young a man being cut off in the very vigour of his talents and in the midst of so many gigantic plans and labours of usefulness. It will be hard to get a worthy, or even a not unworthy successor. Some of our Glasgow cannons are expecting a summons, but which of them—except, perhaps, Welsh—is in the least degree competent ?” The death of Dr. Gibb in June 1831 brought to an end Mr. Candlish’s engagement in St. Andrew’s Church. It serves to show how entirely congenial to his taste and feel- ings was the work of the ministry even at this early period ἡ that, as Miss Duncan tells us, when he had the alternative offered to him of being assistant to Professor Walker in teaching Latin in the University of Glasgow, and of becom- ing assistant to Mr. Gregor, the minister of Bonhill, he accepted the latter appointment without hesitation, although the remuneration offered for the former appointment was twice as much as he received from the minister. At Bonhill, as in St. Andrew’s, Glasgow, the whole of the pulpit and pas- toral duties of the parish were devolved upon him, and these he discharged with such ability, and diligence, and zeal, as to gain the respect and affections of the congregation. But as yet it cannot be said that he had become a popular preacher, 1 It did, indeed. In the month in which this letter was written Dr. Thomson fell down dead at the door of his own house, returning from a meeting of Presbytery, in the business of which he had taken part apparently in his usual health, and in mid-time of his days, I did not hear of it till next day, when walking in the morning from Leith to attend Dr. Chalmers’ class in the University; but on Leith Walk the usual crowds of hurrying feet were arrested, and every face bore an expression of sadness. Those who knew the fact arrested those who did not, and whispered the startling intelligence. Dr. Chalmers came into his class-room as usual, but broke down in the first sen- tence of his lecture, and rushed out, bathed in tears. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. Al and he was suffered to remain in the position he now occupied for two years and three months without receiving a call from any congregation, or realising his hope of being the ordained minister of a small rural charge. His prospect of obtaining such a settlement, indeed, seemed so small, that he seriously contemplated emigrating to the colonies, and actually offered himself for work in Canada. There were several reasons for this deferred hope, some of which are indicated in the letter to’ Mr. Urquhart, which I have given above. He was a reader, at least he had been so when assistant in St. Andrew’s Church. Besides, he had been assistant to one notable Mode- rate minister, and was now in the same relation to a minister of the same type. Moreover, his appearance and manner in the pulpit were at first sight by no means attractive, and young preachers of far inferior powers were preferred before him. In illustration of this fact I may give, from Mr. Bell’s notes, his first impressions of the preacher. He says— “ My acquaintance with Dr. Candlish commenced in the close of 1834 or beginning of 1835. Returning after an absence of three years from Edinburgh, I found him minister of St. George’s, where I had been a hearer, from boyhood, of Dr. Andrew Thomson, and whom, with most others who enjoyed that privilege, 1 regarded as a very great man, whose place no successor could be expected to fill. My first impressions, therefore, were unfavourable. The minister looked so young ; he had an awkward way of habitually shrugging up one shoulder, which gave him almost a deformed look; his voice often passed into a scream or even screech, and his gesticulation was sometimes almost extravagant. But these peculiarities speedily ceased to be regarded, and very soon I felt with everybody else that a great preacher had appeared, and that a new era was coming in for the Scottish pulpit.” Mr. Candlish’s voice subsequently became very melodious, but the nervous twitchings never disappeared. Writing in 1865 Mrs. Gilbert says —‘“ On Sunday morning, M. and I heard Dr. Candlish; that is, she heard and I saw him, —a short man, with broad’ shoulders and a head large 42 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. enough for his diploma. But, oh! such nervous varieties ! If I were his wife I would make his waistcoat and his gown fit better; they were never doing their duty to his satisfaction.” | His offer of service in Canada is contained in a letter addressed to Dr. Robert Burns, then of tac an dated 30th March 1833 :— “ Knowing the interest which you take in the settlement of Chris- tian Churches in British North America, I take the liberty, though a stranger, of addressing you on the subject. I am disposed to regard that country as an interesting field of ministerial labour ; and as I understand that at present there seems to be a call for additional labourers there, I beg to express my desire of serving the great Head of the Church in any part of His vineyard where a fair opening may appear, and my willingness accordingly to accept of any appointment which may hold out the reasonable prospect of professional usefulness and respectability. “1 have been a preacher of the gospel now for about five years, during nearly four of which I have been regularly engaged in the dis- charge of pulpit duty, and latterly of parochial duty also, as an assistant in Glasgow, and in my present situation. I hope, therefore, that I may be in some measure warranted in my wish of forming a more intimate and permanent connection with a congregation of my own.” In a subsequent letter, dated 15th April of the same year, he says— “Though not bound to remain for any definite period, I am un- willing suddenly to desert my post ; and there are considerations that make me feel that, by leaving this place immediately, and without some little preparation, I should not only put the minister to serious inconvenience, but materjally incommode and perhaps injure the con- gregation. I have received great kindness from Mr. Gregor, and it would ill become me to do anything in this affair without consulting, as far as possible, his feelings. I know that he will be averse to part with me, and I should wish that he had such previous notice of my intention as might enable him better to dispense with my services. I may mention, too, that within these few months I have, with Mr. Gregor’s concurrence, begun to adopt measures for the more effectual discharge than hitherto of parochial duty here ; and I feel myself in MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 43 some degree bound to see these measures carried into effect—at least, so far as to prevent them falling to the ground in the event of my going away. The works and plans which I have begun I should like to leave in such a state that any one coming in my place may without difficulty take them up.” Mr. Gregor, who was a shrewd and sagacious man, doubt- less knew the value of his assistant’s services, and would be very unwilling to be deprived of them. He was somewhat of a caustic humourist, and the Vale of Leven abounds with reminiscences of some of his memorable sayings, which Dr. Candlish in later years was wont to rehearse. He belonged to the “ Moderate ” school, but when he found that the sort of moral essays which these divines used to give for sermons was not popular with his parishioners at Bonhill, he burned all his discourses of that kind, and wrote such as were more acceptable to the people. Thus it happened that, without much evangelical fervour, his preaching was quite orthodox. He was neat and elegant in his person, and his composition partook of the same characteristics. His statements were often remarkably felicitous and beautiful. Thus, in fencing the table before the Communion, he would convey encourage- ment to the doubting and timid in such words as these :— “Tf you cannot come with assurance, come for assurance ; if you cannot come with the strong confidence of him who said, ‘Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him, at least come with the trembling faith of the afflicted parent who cried, ‘Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief ἢ After he obtained an assistant, he never preached in his own pulpit himself. “What is the use,” he said, “ οἵ keeping a dog and then barking yourself ?” On one occasion he was to preach at Row on the Monday after the Communion. It was the custom there to have two sermons on that day without any interval, and the minister of a neighbouring parish was the first preacher; Mr. Gregor, 44 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. as the senior minister, following immediately after. During the course of the first sermon he was fidgeting about and looking at his watch from time to time, evidently thinking the preacher was encroaching on the time that should have been allotted to him. At length he got possession of the pulpit, and then began with a prayer, in which he introduced the petition that what they had heard might be blessed “in so far as it has been intelligible, and that which has been intelligible in so far as it has been edifying.” Then, taking out his watch, and laying it down before him, he said, “My friends, at this late hour I will not detain you long. You all know there is a great difference between the length of a sermon and the strength of a sermon.” To a probationer who once preached for him, he said that it was a good discourse; but that it would be better if he would not put quite so much matter into a sermon, and give more attention to the manner of expression. “In a word,” he concluded, “a little less meat, and a little more cooking.” At the time when cholera first visited this country ministers were requested to urge upon their congregations the precau- tions necessary to be observed as a protection against it. Accordingly, on one Sabbath, after Mr. Candlish had preached, Mr. Gregor ascended the pulpit beside him to do this. The first thing he had to enforce was cleanliness, and this he illus- trated in the following way :— “My friends, you may have heard of a substance that has been newly invented, called Mackintosh’s patent cloth, which has the pro- perty of keeping out wet from the body. It has been found, however, that the wearing of this cloth is not very good for the health ; for while it keeps out the wet it has also the effect of keeping in the moisture of the body, and that is injurious. Now it stands to reason that a coating of dirt will have much the same effect as Mackintosh’s patent cloth,” Next he had to speak of temperance, which he did as follows :— “1 used to think, my friends, that a glass of toddy after dinner was MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 45 good for digestion, But I have come to have some doubt about it, You may have seen in the windows of apothecaries’ shops various animal substances in glass jars, preserved in spirits, Now, if spirits have the effect of preserving animal substances, they can hardly be good for digestion. But you must not think that it is only spirits about which you need to be careful, for I can tell! you that if you get drunk on port wine you'll not be sober for a week.” This was said in the presence of many of the country gentle- men, who did not let it down upon him for a long time after, “T can tell you.” i Such was the manner of man to whom Mr. Candlish was assistant for more than two years, As still further illustra- tive of his views and feelings, it may be mentioned that during the period of Mr. Candlish’s services at Bonhill the first collec- tion for Indian Missions was made throughout the Church. Such a thing had never been done in that parish before, and Mr. Gregor was at first opposed to having the collection made at all, but his assistant prevailed on him to allow it. Then Mr, Candlish preached a regular missionary sermon, and the result was a very large collection, and in the end the old minister was not a little proud that theirs was the largest collection in the Presbytery. Of his experiences and feelings during his residence at Bonhill there is very scanty information. A letter, however, addressed to Mr. Urquhart, and dated Ist January 1833, in- dicates that he was then becoming somewhat restless. The letter is little more than an invitation, but it is character- istic :— “T venture to put in a claim for a day at least of your company. When at Glasgow you can easily run down to Dumbarton, and it will be pleasanter and quieter to talk over all matters here than in the great city of Babel. If you are not very particularly engaged on Sab- bath the 13th, give us asermon. Do, for auld lang syne. You never would assist me in Glasgow, and I think I have some claim on you. Exert yourself for once, and do a kind and generous act. Get off any engagement you have, and spend the Sunday with us. If you really 46 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D, cannot do me so great a favour, at least come down here for a night before you leave Glasgow. My mother and sister would be very glad if you would bring Miss Urquhart along with you, They claim a promise from her to visit us; and if she is disposed to double the kindness, now is the time for enlivening and cheering our dull abode in the dreariness of winter. I hope she may be persuaded to fulfil her promise, and take the opportunity of your coming. In which case I engage, after a due and reasonable time has elapsed, and our endeavours fail to reconcile her to our banishment, to conduct her safely to Kil- birnie, Greenock, or any other civilised part of the habitable globe.” In a letter to Mr. Urquhart, dated 3d October of the same year, he says— “T have often reproached myself all this summer for not writing to acknowledge your kindness in preaching for me, I delayed in expectation of having something definite to tell as to my prospects. But they are still as dark and doubtful as ever. I thought once that I was within reach of a settlement either in London or here, as there was a movement about the successorship. The principal party con- cerned, however, threw cold water on the proposal. My London hopes proved visionary ; and so here I am again thrown back. Abundantly discontented you may suppose, A speedy removal from this place, since I cannot get a permanent appointment, would be very desirable for more reasons than one ; but, alas! I see no probable pretence for changing.” The change was nearer than he anticipated. He was on the eve of being removed to his permanent sphere of labour in St. George’s, Edinburgh, Before detailing the steps which led to this change, I give his own letter to Mr. Urquhart in the immediate prospect of it, dated 11th December 1833 ;— “T should have written you sooner, but waited till I could com- municate something certain regarding my movements. I believe now that my business is all but fixed, and waiting only on Roxburgh’s arrangement.! Only, as I have not received any formal and official call, I do not like to speak too confidently. The matter stands thus, The very day I left you James Mitchell wrote to Shanks More, and by return of post received an invitation for me to preach. Welsh was 1 Dr. Roxburgh, now of St. John’s, Glasgow, was then assistant to Mr. Martin in St. George’s, Edinburgh, MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 47 referred to, and also written to, I spent a fortnight in Edinburgh, and preached on the 17th November in the Canongate Chapel, and on the 24th in St. George’s. For the former I have little chance, at least just at present, there being sundry petty cabals in progress. But the im- pression in St. George’s was decided—indeed, so favourable as to sur- prise me a little, considering the small notice taken elsewhere. Dr. Chalmers was a hearer, and is now warmly interested in my success. That of itself, I mean the gaining of his approbation, and his personal friendship, would be a sufficient benefit resulting from my visit. I found More most kind, and, after Sabbath, he spoke for himself and his brother elders very strongly, so that altogether, unless some awk- ward chance intervenes, I have little doubt of success. I had a letter this morning from Buchanan (North Leith) confirming my expectations. I believe the Session are merely waiting till Roxburgh’s affairs are in some degree fixed. There was some fear of delay in regard to his induction at Dundee, in which case he might have resumed his engage- ment for three months in Edinburgh. But I understand now the dif- ficulty is got over, and he is to be settled without delay ; so that I should hope he will not require to continue much longer where he is. Mr. More told me I might possibly receive rather sudden notice ; so that I hold myself in waiting as patiently as I can. I was very much pleased with his kindness, and the frankness with which he spoke of his desire to serve me not only in this but in any other matters. I was only afraid the sough of my connection with St. Andrew’s Church would operate against me. But I hope any false impression on that head has been guarded against. I did not use your letter, though not the less obliged to you for it on that account. Mr. Martin is in Italy, and leaves the affair entirely to the Session. They informed him, how- ever, of the application and recommendations in my favour, and he signified his willingness to acquiesce. He is rather better, I understand, though not much. He has twice, I believe, expressed an anxiety to resign. It is very conscientious and noble disinterestedness, Of course there can be no idea of any such arrangement so long as there is any prospect of recovery at all. “T have thought it due to our friendship and the interest you took in the matter to let you know the improved, and, as I trust, improving, state of my prospects, though still doubtful and uncertain. I confess I have so often now been disappointed when on the very point of suc- cess that I am anxious and somewhat restless, and feel as if I could depend on nothing till some irrevocable step is taken. I would fain hope, however, that whatever may be the issue of this affair, I 48 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. have made some friends, and gained some notice likely to help me to gain others,” It was a letter addressed by James Mitchell, Esq., Glas- | gow, to J, Shank More, Esq., Edinburgh, which led to the introduction of Mr. Candlish to the congregation of St. George’s. The letter, dated 16th October 1833, is in the fol- lowing terms :— “My friend Mr. Robert Smith Candlish, A.M., assistant to Mr. Gregor of Bonhill, having heard that the assistancy in St. George’s is vacant, is desirous to have the appointment for three months or longer, and wishes me to mention the circumstance to you, who are so likely to be consulted, and to take an active interest in the new appointment, “ Mr. Candlish was a fellow-student of mine, and was an excellent and talented writer, and stood high as a scholar in different depart- ments of College studies. “ And he is far from being unpractised or unpopular as a preacher. He was for a considerable time assistant to Dr, Gibb of St. Andrew’s ; and, when he left that charge about the time of Dr. Gibb’s death, he entered upon his present office, which he has since continued to occupy with such acceptance that a scattered congregation has been collected, the church is filled, or nearly so, and the parishioners applied for his appointment as successor to the present incumbent. “T have not heard Mr. Candlish preach, so that I do not personally know his style or sentiments ; but Mr. Urquhart, whom you have seen as tutor to my cousins, and in whose evangelical sentiments you have, I daresay, confidence, was so fond of him as a preacher, that while he was in St. Andrew’s he used to sit under his ministry ; and I have re- peatedly heard that he is a forcible and eloquent preacher. “On all these points he refers to Dr. Welsh, who knows him “‘inti- mately, and who can give a full account of his character and acquire- ments. “Tf the vacancy is still open, I should think—from all I know of Mr. Candlish—that the congregation would do well to take a hearing of him. And he will be ready to go in to Edinburgh for this purpose, or to give any satisfaction that may be desired from a personal interview. It is probable that Mr. Urquhart will write to Mr. Martin on the subject ; but from your connection with the congregation Mr. Candlish wishes me to bring the matter before you. I have no liking to inter- fere between a congregation and their pastor, but it is only just to state MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 49 the above facts when asked to do so, and this I do with perfect confi- dence and candour.” To this letter Mr. More replied on the 17th October :— “JT received your letter of the 16th this morning. Mr. Roxburgh, who was engaged as assistant at St. George’s for three months after last Sabbath, is to fulfil his engagement, notwithstanding his call to Dundee, so that no assistant will be required till the middle of January at the earliest. “From what you say of Mr. Candlish, he seems a very desirable person for such a situation, and your favourable account of him was confirmed by Dr. C., who happened to call upon me, in reference to another young preacher he was recommending with the same view, a short time after I received your letter. If Mr. Candlish were to be in Edinburgh at any rate, I wish you would let me know, and I should secure him a diet in St, George’s, so that he might be heard, and the feelings of the people ascertained with regard to him, One of the city clergy will frequently, perhaps generally, preach one half of the day, and if you would let me know when Mr. Candlish may probably be in Edinburgh it would be desirable. I may mention that till the middle of November all the diets are filled up, so that it must be after that before he could be heard. But as it is probable that several young men will be proposed to succeed Mr. Roxburgh, the sooner Mr. Candlish is heard the better. “Tam much obliged to you for suggesting any good preacher of whom you may hear, and I have no doubt, from what you say, Mr. Candlish will give satisfaction.” The result was, as we have seen, that Mr. Candlish preached in St. George’s on the 24th November. When the matter of the assistantship was finally settled, he again wrote to his friend Mr. Urquhart on the 3d February 1834 :— “You must have thought me very negligent in not writing sooner, and yet I plead guilty to the delay only of a very few days. My appointment as assistant in St. George’s took place just three weeks ago. It was settled at last most harmoniously and handsomely. Dr. Chalmers acted admirably, and interested himself warmly in my favour. The Mores were even enthusiastic in the matter. No other preacher was heard as a candidate. But some difficulties were started. The vile report of Moderation was revived. Some great folks had private ends E 50 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. to serve, and the students and preachers here made a fuss and outery about the unfairness of passing them over and bringing a man from the west. Mr. More, indeed, tells me that I have a very considerable prejudice to overcome, and more pains were taken to defeat me than the thing altogether seemed worth. - However, ultimately, Lord Moncreiff being quite satisfied, the Session were unanimous and cordial. I hope I have gained a step towards a settlement. I have gained, if I can keep, some good and influential friends. I almost wonder now at my pre- sumption and my success, I am surprised to find myself here, and feel considerable diffidence as to my being able to assume a proper tone and preserve a right line of conduct. For the pulpit duties, health being supposed, I am not much afraid, having a tolerable stock in trade ; but for the private intercourse, etc., it is difficult and delicate for a mere assistant in so important and prominent a charge to know and keep his place. My hope is that I shall not be long here. I would fain retreat, at least for ten or twelve years to come, to a country charge, provided it were my own. Had our old friend at Bonhill not been a fool I should not have thought of leaving it. But these matters and speculations are beyond us. About a month ago I preached as a candidate in Roxburgh Place Chapel—the Chapel received into the Establishment last Assembly. The managers invited me chiefly upon the recommendation of Mr. More, whose extraordinary friendship I can never sufficiently value or repay. At present I understand the impres- sion is pretty much in my favour, at least it lies between another and myself. They mean to elect, I am told, in March. I wish they may elect judiciously... The Chapel is much in debt. The stipend would be very small; but I would be most thankful for a permanent footing and full orders anywhere. These assistantships are not good. They give too much duty with too little weight. A man cannot tell what he is—he is neither fish nor flesh. He cannot assume the status of a minister, and yet he is in the situation of one. “For public matters. The Church here is truly in danger. A radical magistracy, and an infidel or semi-infidel population, urged on by our political dissenters, who seem to have merged their spiritual calling and their religious duties in the work of revolutionary agita- tion, and to have lost the Christian in the Demagogue—these are formidable adversaries. Dr. Chalmers made a noble speech, as you would see, in the Presbytery, characterising the littleness of the times, and the men, and the measures. The speech, 1.6. the exertion of 1 The preacher chosen in preference to Mr. Candlish was Mr. Fowler, after- wards minister at Ratho. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 51 making it, laid him up for some days. He has been seriously unwell, but is convalescent. Notwithstanding his remonstrance the council are going on in their reckless career. They are determined, it seems, both to agitate the city in detail in the several wards and to go to Parliament on their most infamous scheme of suppressing ministerial charges. One almost wishes them to go on, just to display their temper, and to afford the Church an opportunity of a splendid and glorious effort. Suppose, as is hinted, a commission of Presbytery or Assembly sent to London, claiming or petitioning to be heard at the bar of the Commons against the measure—Dr. Chalmers addressing to such an assembly one of his vivid appeals on his favourite theme of parochial work—who shall say what the moral effect might be of such a display? What a magnificent situation for the Doctor! What an impression on the public mind might be made ! What a stimulus given to the good cause! What a grand assertion of the great principle of a National Church! Could such a result of the present infatuation be anticipated, it would indeed be bringing good out of evil. But I fear it is a result too favourable for these dark times. Men’s minds are not open to large and liberal views—a certain low and feeble and miserably short-sighted policy rather suits them. Everything like high principle and honest zeal seems out of place. All is cold and calculating prudence. Does it not seem to you that the governments and legislatures of the great civilised nations are manifesting an in- fatuated blindness to the progress of things towards a crisis? that the events of the day are too great for the little men who, instead of guiding them, are involved helplessly in their course? that the stream of affairs everywhere is tending to a cataract or torrent? that the several lines of history in all parts of the world are rapidly converging to one awful point—a general convulsive movement? In the west, Spain and Portugal already unsettled, France and England at least not settled ; in the East, the Turkish power vanishing, and the way pre- paring for Palestine emerging from its long obscurity to its destined and predicted pre-eminence. Do not appearances marvellously corre- spond with the expectations of Christian students of prophecy, and betoken the drawing near of the final consummation and catastrophe of the drama? Do you ever study prophecy ?—Faber or Keith on the Signs of the Times? It is a fascinating study, but I feel is very apt to lead to unprofitable speculations, or wild vagaries, and draw attention from the more important concerns of private and personal religion, But at such a time as the present, so fruitful of change and so ominous of wars, one cannot but be somewhat on the watch to observe. 52 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. “T have taken lodgings in the house of Mr. Ferguson, 3 Hope Street. My mother and sister remain at Bonhill for the present, the house there being taken till Whitsunday. Before that time I would fain hope we shall be able to see our way more clearly than at present to a settled resting-place. If I continue in Edinburgh in any capacity, I fancy they will join me here, Our family now is so small that it is not worth while to separate Small as it is, we dare not reckon upon the circle continuing long unbroken, The anxiety is natural to make the most of the allotted time of union. On this, as well as on other accounts, I regret much leaving Bonhill at present, where I met with much friendship, and where I was beginning to feel that I could be acceptable, and useful, and happy. I have left a people as attached to me as I can well hope to find elsewhere, It is painful to form con- nections so precarious, and be obliged to abandon a field which one would like well to cultivate. Yet, in the circumstances, I think I have done right. I hope it may turn out well. Excuse my excessive egotism, I confess 1 am becoming not a little anxious.” At the beginning of the above letter Mr. Candlish refers to some difficulties which lay in the way of his election as assistant in St. George’s, and particularly to the revival of the report as to his being a Moderate. There was, in fact, as I remember, a keen conflict of opinion on that subject, as appears also from the statement given in the Life of Principal Cunningham, that the name of Mr. Candlish having been mentioned in connection with the vacancy in Old Kilpatrick, Mr. Cunningham expressed a desire to get that parish him- self, in order to keep out a Moderate of the name of Candlish. The difficulty was overcome very much by the assurance of Mr. James Buchanan, then minister of North Leith parish, that the suspicion was wholly groundless. The reference towards the close of the letter is to a contro- versy of great keenness between the Town Council and the Pres- bytery of Edinburgh as to ecclesiastical matters, and in which Dr. Chalmers took a leading part. I content myself with stating merely what the subject matter of it was. Those who desire fuller information regarding it will find it detailed in Dr. 1 His elder sister had died 28d May 1827, when he was at Eton. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 53 Hannah's Life of Dr. Chalmers. The matter in itself was not one of great magnitude, but was regarded by Dr. Chalmers as involving great principles, the carrying out of which was of vital importance to the wellbeing of the community. The plan recommended to the Town Council in regard to the city Churches in Edinburgh was, that the annuity tax, by which the stipends of the city ministers was provided, should be abolished; that the number of city ministers should be reduced from eighteen to thirteen; and that the stipends should be paid from the pew rents, any deficiency being made up by a tax on all heritable property, one-half levied from the proprietor and one-half from the tenant. This pro- posal was resisted by Dr. Chalmers with all the vehemence and eloquence and force of argument of which he was master, and his views were warmly sympathised with by ministers of the Established Church generally, and especially by the evangelical party. CHAPTER III. Appointed Assistant Minister of St. George’s—Call to Regent Square, London —Call declined—Movement for his settlement in St. George’s—My first acquaintance with him—Presentation to St. George’s—Public sermons and lectures—His marriage—Home life—Proposal for a new church in Young Street—Church erected ; Mr. Moody-Stuart, minister—Provision for educational wants—Proposal to translate him to Greenside—How he entertained it—Induced to remain in St. George’s, missionary assistants being employed—Mr. A. A. Bonar—Missionary Association—Labours outside his own parish and congregation—Letter of consolation. Ir was in January 1834 that Mr. Candlish entered the sphere of his future labours. His position, indeed, was not at first intended to be permanent, nor had he any expectation that it was to assume such a character. His ambition did not soar so high as to anticipate his becoming minister of St. George’s, Edinburgh. He was there merely as temporary assistant to Mr. Martin, whose health, after a very brief service in that charge, had become impaired, and who had betaken himself to the warmer climate of Italy for the winter. It very soon be- came apparent, however, that the time had now come for fulfill- ing his desire of finding a “settled resting-place”— not such a place as he longed for, but one of far greater prominence. The congregation of St. George’s found that if they were to retain him at all they must take steps to secure his perma- nent residence among them. People elsewhere were seeking , to obtain the benefit of his services. He had preached for four Sabbaths in the summer of 1833 in Regent Square Church, London, which was at that time vacant by the removal of Edward Irving, but not with any view to his MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 5d settlement in that charge. Such, however, was the impres- sion created regarding his gifts and character, that in the spring of the following year he received an invitation from the congregation to become their pastor, for it was only then that they were in a position to call a minister. In this connection it is interesting to read the following letter of Mr. Cunningham, then minister of the College Church, Edinburgh, addressed to James Nisbet, Esq., one of the elders in Regent Square Church. The letter is evidently in answer to inquiries by Mr. Nisbet :-— “My dear Sir—You are aware that I was a good deal prejudiced against Candlish, and I don’t think that my prejudices were at all unreasonable considering his long and close connection with Moderate men. I have not yet any personal acquaintance with him, but I must say that all I have heard since I came to Edinburgh has tended to remove prejudice and to make me confide in his sincerity. He has been preaching with great acceptance in St. George’s, and is at present spoken of as not very unlikely to succeed Dr. Inglis in the Greyfriars. I should think him exceedingly well qualified for Regent Square, and likely to be a decidedly acceptable and successful minister there. “T am glad to think that you have now the near prospect of getting a minister of your own, and I trust that God will send you one after His own heart. I don’t expect much from next Assembly. I am somewhat afraid, notwithstanding the Burgh Reform Bill, which will greatly improve the burgh towns—for most of them will send up anti-Patronage men—that still the Assembly may be pretty Moderate.” While matters were ripening in Regent Square, however, early in May 1854 the Kirk-Session of St. George’s had come to the resolution of applying to the Town Council of Edin- burgh to have him appointed as assistant and successor to Mr. Martin. He therefore declined the call to London, although his kindly relations with Regent Square Church, strengthened as they afterwards were by the fact of his beloved friend James Hamilton becoming its minister, were never broken. When, in his decaying years, he preached his friend’s funeral sermon, recalling that former time, he said— 56 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. “Tt is now some four-and-thirty years since I first made the acquaintance of the Regent Square congregation, and narrowly missed being their pastor.” It was in the spring of 1834, when he had only been for a few weeks assistant in St. George’s, that I first saw and heard Mr. Candlish. It was at a meeting of probationers and students of Divinity in Dr. Chalmers’ class-room in the University, held for the purpose of getting a marble bust of Dr. Andrew Thomson executed, to be placed as a permanent memorial of him in the Hall of the Edinburgh Presbytery. Mr. Candlish attended, and spoke at the meeting, proposing, if I remember rightly, the appointment of a committee to raise subscriptions among the probationers and students of Divinity, to procure the bust. The subscriptions were limited to these classes, for it was designed as a testimonial on their part of their high appreciation of the eminent services rendered by Dr. Thomson to the Church of Scotland and to the country. There was nothing in the brief speech to indicate Mr. Cand- lish’s power as an orator, but it served to indicate his thorough sympathy with Dr. Thomson’s sentiments and labours. Shortly afterwards I met Mr. Candlsh in the apartments of my friend and fellow-student Thomas Duncan, who was afterwards minister, first at Kirkintilloch, and afterwards at Newcastle. It was a students’ supper-party. The interlocutors were our host, Mr. John Anderson—who two years later went to Madras as the first missionary of the Church of Scotland there—Mr. Candlish, and myself. As the manner of students was, and I suppose still is, we got somehow into a discussion. The subject of it that evening was conscience, and it was chiefly maintained between Mr. Candlish and myself, and continued till a very late hour. I received then a very profound impression of his singular and versatile gifts, of his acuteness and power; and all who were present on that evening were firmly persuaded that he would soon rise to a foremost place in the Church. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. δ In his interesting history of St. George’s Church, Mr. David Maclagan says :— “T find, on referring to the Municipal Records of Edinburgh, that on the 18th March 1834 Lord Moncreiff and Mr. Learmonth of Dean applied, on behalf of the congregation of St. George’s, that Mr. Cand- lish be appointed colleague (assistant ?) and successor of Mr. Martin, there being then a probability of Mr. Candlish leaving Edinburgh altogether. Whether this contemplated movement was still the colonial plan already referred to, or the Regent Square one, I cannot trace ; but on the 13th May 1834, a letter, in name of the elders, signed by Lord Moncreiff, Mr. Learmonth, and Mr. John Thomson, was addressed to the Town Council, stating that Mr. Martin had no hope of resuming his duties, and requesting that Mr. Candlish, who had for three months officiated as assistant, be appointed colleague (assistant ?) and successor, adding, ‘ who is most acceptable to us, and whom we know to be highly acceptable to the congregation.” They further stated that the proposal had the approval of Dr, Chalmers. “On the 20th May 1834, accordingly, a presentation was made out in favour of Mr. Candlish as assistant and successor to Mr. Martin,— the Lord Provost (Spittal), Dean of Guild (Macfeat), and Convener (Banks), ‘ to prosecute the matter before the Presbytery.’ “ The death of Mr. Martin, a week afterwards, arrested proceedings in this form. On the 180 of July the Town Council, on the motion of the Lord Provost, agreed to make a supplementary presentation in con- sequence of doubts as to the validity of the preceding one. The sup- plementary presentation bears that it is ‘without hurt or prejudice to the said presentation, but in confirmation and corroboration thereof, and in supplement thereto.’ “ Mr. Candlish was not ordained minister of St. George’s until August 1834, on the 17th of which month he preached his first sermon as minister of the congregation from the words, ‘ One soweth and another reapeth,—a sermon which he recast and rewrote during the last year of his life.” * As usually happens on the first settlement of a minister in a city charge, demands were soon made upon Mr. Candlish to preach sermons on public occasions and for benevolent 1 This sermon has been published in a memorial volume, issued shortly after his death. 58 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. societies. These demands were more than usually frequent upon him, partly from the unprecedented fact of a young and unknown probationer having been ordained as minister of St. George’s, and partly because it soon became widely enough known that his preaching was of almost unrivalled excellence, and that his name was sure to draw a large audience. In September 1834, a month after his ordination, he preached a sermon on behalf of the Ladies’ Auxiliary to the Gaelic School Society, on the text, Acts xvii. 23, which was printed by request, and forms the author’s earliest publication. This sermon made the merits of his preaching more widely known, and increased the demands upon him for similar services. A sermon preached in 1835, entitled, “Remarks on the Chris- tian principle of Benevolence,” which was also published at the request of the Society for the Relief of the Destitute Sick, tended in the same direction. This sermon forms the last piece in the volume afterwards published, entitled, Scripture Characters and Miscellanies. Nor was it merely in the way of preaching public sermons that demands were made upon his energies. About the time of his ordination it had become an established institution, both in Edinburgh and Glasgow, that courses of lectures should be delivered on the leading topics which were inter- esting the religious community. These lectures were almost wholly delivered by ministers, and the two subjects em- braced in two separate courses of lectures were Voluntaryism and Popery. Mr. Candlish could not escape being called on to take part in these courses of lectures, which he did with singular power and effect. In his reminiscences of Mr. Candlish Mr. Bell says— “ Besides the proper duties of his office as minister of St. George’s, Mr. Candlish took his share from an early period in various courses of lectures which were deemed necessary in those days for educating the public mind on several important subjects. Most of these lectures MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 59 were published after they had been delivered, and I believe even yet it will be seen that Mr. Candlish invariably raised the question under discussion to a platform unwontedly high, and cast around it a glow of genius and spirituality quite new and unlooked for. I remember being always impressed with this feeling. It was the same with his platform speeches. He never forgot himself,—never lost sight of the fact that he was a minister of the gospel,—never took advantage of an opponent, however sorely tempted,—but always seemed to ask him- self, How will my sayings here bear comparison with the tone of my Sabbath ministrations? He seemed always to be less intent on per- sonal credit than on securing the advancement of the good cause, and the welfare of the Church and State. His great aim seemed to be, in his youth, his mature manhood, and his green old age—‘ Ne quid detri- menti respublica capniat. ἢ Mr. Candlish married at Renfrew, on the 6th January 1835, Janet, daughter of Walter Brock, who still survives, and of whom it is not meet to say more than that she had and has “the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which, in ᾽ the sight of God is of great price ;” and, having such a spirit, apart from other graces and excellences, was of unspeakable value to her husband. This event made no interruption in his manifold labours any more than the variety and extent of them interfered with the discharge of his duties to his congregation and parish. On the day preceding his marriage he issued a circular to his congregation explanatory of a proposal for a new church in Young Street. It would be an utter mistake to assume that this arose from any indif- ference to domestic ties. No man had warmer family affec- tions or deeper enjoyment of the felicities of the home circle. It was a constant source of strength and refreshment to him to be in the bosom of his family, in the society of his wife and children. His spirits always rose in the society of young people, and he rioted in their hilarity. His children had a very keen appreciation of this characteristic of his nature, which helped so much to make his fireside joyful. His old familiar friend, Mr. Robert Wilson, says that when 60 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. his children were anticipating and planning some amuse- ment, and found that at the time their father was to be from home, they gladly postponed the time of their expected enjoyment for the sake of his companionship in it. “We will wait,” they said, “till he comes back, that we may have some fun.” The enjoyments of his home life and his assiduous public labours trode very close upon each other, and were no doubt mutually helpful. He wrought all the harder and more efficiently because of the zest with which he entered into the pleasures of the domestic circle, and the exhaustion of his public labours rendered these pleasures far more re- freshing and enjoyable. Mr. Candlish entered upon his ministry just at the time when the work of Church Extension had received such a wondrous impulse from the legislation of the Church, and the indomitable zeal and stirring eloquence of Dr. Chalmers. The General Assembly of 1834 removed the restrictions which had been hitherto imposed upon ministers of Chapels of Ease, as they were called. Up to that time the ministers of such chapels, although ordained, were merely preachers. They had no kirk-session for the exercise of discipline and the government of the congregation, and they were not allowed to be members of any Church Court. They exer- cised the function of teaching, but were excluded from the function of ruling. The Assembly, 1834, rectified this un- presbyterial anomaly. It admitted them to the full functions of the ministerial office, and appointed districts to be allo- cated to their churches as parishes quoad sacra. This ori- ginated a vast movement for church extension, which was prosecuted with singular energy and success. It was pecu- larly fortunate that such a man as Dr. Chalmers was placed at the head of it; and by the liberality evoked from all classes by his resistless appeals, in the course of a very few years about two hundred new congregations were organised. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 61 We may be sure that Mr. Candlish was not insensible to the value and importance of such a movement, nor slow to give practical effect to it within his own domain. The parish of St. George’s, of which he had recently been ordained the minister, afforded scope enough for subdivision, and for re- claiming many who had lapsed from Church ordinances. In a circular issued by the trustees of the proposed new church, while the movement for its erection was in progress, I find the following statement :—“ They (the trustees) refer also to the ascertained destitution in respect of spiritual privileges, of a large portion of the parish of St. George’s. The parish has a population of nearly 8000; and in three of the poorer streets, out of a population of 3000, there are upwards of 2000 persons in 419 families who have not more than 343 sittings taken in any place of worship, and of these there are 266 families known to be wholly unprovided.” Mr. Cand- lish, as has been stated, issued his first proposals for the erection of the church early in January 1835. For an account of the full development of the scheme I gladly avail myself of what Mr. Maclagan has so well stated in his History of St. George’s :— “Jn the close of that year (1834) the new minister gave unmis- takable evidence of the spirit in which he entered upon his work by taking action in regard to a preaching station in St. George’s parish, this being the first of those church extension and territorial efforts in connection with our congregation which were a grand feature of Mr. Candlish’s ministry. The building he had in view for the purpose was in Young Street, and belonged to the “ Unitarian Society,” from which, in due time, it was purchased. “Mr, Alexander Moody—now Dr. Moody-Stuart—had been acting as a missionary in Holy Island, near the coast of Northumberland, a lonely and primitive spot, where fruits of his labours forty years ago are still to be found. Mr. Candlish had heard him preach, and having secured the building in Young Street, secured the man to occupy it as preacher. Mr. Moody-Stuart came to Edinburgh in January 1835, preached for about two months on Sabbath evenings in St. George’s, 62 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. and subsequently entered upon his duties in Young Street, which, in its origin, was not intended to be more than a parochial preaching station. He had not been long in harness before an event occurred which seemed to be about to bring his work there to a close. “Mr. Alexander Dunlop, and others interested in Stockbridge as a field of labour, had contracted to purchase a church there from the United Presbyterian congregation, who contemplated leaving it. The arrangement was understood by Mr. Dunlop to be practically con- cluded, and he offered the appointment as minister to Mr. Moody- Stuart. It was accepted by him. “He mentioned to a very admirable and excellent lady, Mrs. Buchanan, widow of the well-known minister of the Canongate, who worshipped in the Young Street Church, the step he had taken. “She met him with the inquiry, ‘ Why cannot we have a church of our own on a similar footing with the contemplated Stockbridge one?’ Mr. Moody-Stuart replied it was out of the question ; many difficulties stood in the way, and not the least of these was that it would cost £2000 to make the Young Street building suitable for a permanent place of worship. Mrs. Buchanan’s answer was, ‘ Call upon me to-morrow about this matter.’ Mr. Moody-Stuart did so, and Mrs. Buchanan, exacting a promise of strict secrecy, handed to him the needed sum. ‘The secret was well kept, and I suppose was known to no one else (Mr. Candlish, possibly excepted) until after Mrs. Buchanan’s death. “ Meanwhile a difficulty had occurred about the Stockbridge build- ing, which the United Presbyterians resolved, after all, to retain, and which is known as Dean Street Church to this day. Mr. Moody-Stuart remained in connection with St. George’s Church — went with his people temporarily to the Straiton Gallery or Bazaar in Wemyss Place, on the site of which now stands St. Stephen’s Free Church ; the church in Young Street was built : and this is the hisiory of St. Luke’s. “Still, it was only a preaching station, and it was not without much difficulty in the Presbytery, and even in the Kirk-Session of St. George’s, that it was created a quoad sacra parish, and Mr. Moody- Stuart was ordained its minister in 1837. The church had one thou- sand sittings, and in letting them a preference was given to those resident in St. George’s parish, and chiefly to those in the eastern por- tion of it. To the great delight of Mr. Candlish and Mr. Moody-Stuart, about seven hundred of the sittings were taken by parishioners, and the whole movement was crowned with complete success. The church was really built through the efforts of Mr. Candlish, the liberality of Mrs. Buchanan, and the influence of those attached to the evangelical MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 63 party in the Church ; and at the Disruption no attempt was made to interfere with Mr. Moody-Stuart or his congregation.” It may be interesting to record that in this church the Protest of 1843 was produced and read, and agreed to and subscribed, just previous to the meeting of the General Assembly that year. The building was claimed and appro- priated by the Established Church in 1847, and continued unused and unoccupied for some years. The fostering of this new charge was not the only thing devised and carried through by the young minister for the benefit of his parish. In its educational interests Dr. Andrew Thomson had some years before established a school in Queensferry Street, which was one of the most numerously- attended and prosperous schools in Edinburgh for many years, and known under the name of Andrew Thomson’s School. Following out the beneficent design of his prede- cessor, Mr. Candlish, in further extension of the educational equipment of St. George’s, in 1836 intimated to his Kirk- Session that arrangements had been made by him for opening a female school in William Street, and that the expenses had been already provided for. As the minister of such a populous parish, and zealous to supply all its wants, we may well believe that his hands were full of work; so full, indeed, that he felt it to be overwhelm- ing, and entertained very favourably a proposal to transfer him to a new charge which was being erected in that same year, and which had attached to it a parish of more manage- able dimensions. It will be remembered with what extreme disfavour, while yet a probationer, he contemplated the pro- posal made to the Town Council to reduce the number of city ministers. Through the zeal and energy of the friends of the Established Church in Edinburgh an entirely new form was given to the proposal, which could not fail to meet the warm approval of Mr. Candlish. Instead of allowing the 64 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. number of ministers to be reduced by abstaining from filling up the place of a collegiate minister when he died, and leaving the parish under the superintendence of a single minister, the enterprise now begun was to increase the number of parishes by uncollegiating some of them when a vacancy arose. In this way two new parishes were erected almost contemporaneously, Greenside and St. John’s, by uncollegiat- - ing the charges of Old and New Greyfriars. Greenside was the first in order, and some difficulty having arisen in the Town Council regarding the selection of a suitable minister, they solved it by issuing a presentation on the 19th July 1836 in favour of Mr. Candlish. There could be no doubt that in his hands the new charge would be a conspicuous success. The Kirk-session of St. George’s immediately took alarm, and re- solved to “represent to the Presbytery the serious evils likely to result from the proposed translation, and the importance of retaining Mr. Candlish’s services in his present charge.” How Mr. Candlish himself at first regarded the proposal will be best seen from the following letter addressed to Mr. Alexander Dunlop when it was first mooted, and from a subse- quent letter addressed to Mr. Shank More on 24thJ uly 1836 :— “My dear Sir—On considering a suggestion so suddenly and abruptly made, I feel much at a loss. I have no hesitation in think- ing that the change from a very large congregation and parish to a more defined field of labour would be a relief to me, and I certainly do feel that the constant exhaustion of strength and spirits required in so prominent a charge as I now occupy, and where the services rendered ought to be of a peculiarly high order, is more than I can reckon on long standing without injury to health and wearing out of mind. “My predilections would certainly lead me to embark on the enterprise and experiment of Greenside with all my heart. At the same time, considering my ties to my present people and the state of various arrangements in this parish, I do feel difficulty in regard to the footing on which I could put my removal, or justify and explain it so as to be satisfactory. “Had the relief held out been greater and more palpable than MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 65 merely to another city charge, the case Would have been more simple. I do strongly feel, however, that it would be a relief; and there are good precedents for it. I cannot bring myself positively to say that I would solicit the change, or even irrevocably to pledge myself, on so short notice, that I might not be made to see my duty more clearly than I see it now. I cannot expressly promise to accept. But any spontaneous request to me to undertake the conduct of an experiment, on the success of which much depends for the cause of the Church and religion in Edinburgh, would be to mea very urgent call, and also a very satisfactory plea——I am, yours very truly, Rost. 8S. CANDLISH. “9 CastLE SrreEt, Monday.” “On the whole, I do not see my way at all so clearly in this matter as to warrant you in resting much on me, provided you can make any other satisfactory arrangement. I would be far more clear were I asked to go to a place of greater retirement still.” “ My dear Mr. More—I owe to you an explanation of what has taken place within the last few days, to me most unexpectedly. I regretted exceedingly your absence from town—with you whom I regard as my very best friend I longed to take eounsel—and among many causes of regret to me in my present most embarrassing circumstances, one of the principal is my reserve in intercourse with you on a subject which has been pressing with growing weight on my mind—the conscious failure of my strength, and its insufficiency for a charge like my present one. I have often been on the point of speaking to you, and expressing to you the conviction I had formed, that it would be my duty, if a charge less extensive were put before me, to consider it. The present arrangement has brought the matter most suddenly to a crisis. “1 enclose for your perusal, if you will do me that favour, a state- ment which I gave to the Kirk-session. I do not know that I can add anything more in the way of explanation. I dare not hope that it will be altogether satisfactory to your mind, I entreat you to put a candid, an indulgent interpretation on it. I have had one meeting with the Kirk-session, and on Saturday next we are to hold another. The kindness—the affectionate regard expressed by all the members— is more than I can ever return adequately. I know and feel that I have to ask their forgiveness. I deserved not to receive their assur- ance of unabated confidence and attachment. The strongest represen- tations were given to me of the importance of my present services, and the certainty of any relief or aid that I might think necessary being F 66 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. willingly accorded to me. I was well aware beforehand that the slightest hint from me, regarding my need of assistance, would be at once attended to by my friends. I do, however, shrink from any such arrangement, as in itself perhaps the very greatest evil that such a people as St. George’s could have to suffer, and as in the circumstances very undesirable,—nay, unjustifiable. There is no branch of the duties that can at all well be delegated or divided more than at present, and I confess I look on the present call to a charge for which I am certainly more fully competent, as relieving me and my people from one of two serious inconveniences,—either my being obliged to content myself with a very imperfect routine of duty among them, or my de- claring myself insufficient for some of its most essential parts. I am not in point of strength at all incompetent, as I think, for the super- intendence of a small parish, to which exclusively my ministrations are to be confined. With a church not so large and a congregation conse- quently less numerous, and gathered, as by the constitution of the new erection, they must be from a definite and not extensive locality, I can, as I trust, by the divine blessing, do the work of a minister. Am I not called rather to go to a field of labour which I feel confident I can in some measure adequately cultivate, than continue in one where my strength is failing me, and I can regard myself as sufficient, even humanly speaking, only for a very little of what is required ? “Tet me hear from you, my dear Mr. More, at your convenience, and give me at least the assurance that however you may disapprove of my conduct I shall not lose your personal regard, Should the step, as is but too probable, be irrevocable, I do hope it will not seem to you to savour of ingratitude. I owe much to you, more than I can ever repay ; and, however I may err in judgment, I would not willingly fail in showing my sense of your remarkable kindness. I believe in my heart that I best show it now by taking the opportunity presented to me of retiring from a situation too important and too arduous, in which I should have, I fear, still more to task your indul- gence of my partial and inadequate services. Whatever place I may occupy in the Church, I am indebted for it, under God, mainly to you. My desire is to continue worthy of the confidence which you at first put in me. Shall I not better do so by cultivating more fully a smaller field, than by failing in a larger? You should be informed that in Greenside two-thirds of the sittings can be let only to parishioners. To the rest parishioners have a preference, and after them subscribers. So that, unquestionably, the labour will be more definite and distinct, and such as I can better overtake. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 67 “T beg my best regards to Mrs. More, if she will accept them. I need your united sympathy and prayers. In this step I may be very wrong. I desire, however, to do right. “TJ trust you are all benefiting by your excursion, and pray the Lord may sustain and comfort you all.—Believe me ever, my dear Mr. More, yours most affectionately, Rosert S. CANDLISH.” His views in favour of removal to the new and small parish were ultimately overcome, and he was induced to re- main in St. George’s, with characteristic self-devotion yielding up his declared preference to what, as advised by such friends as Dr. Cunningham and Dr. R. Buchanan, seemed to be the greater good of the Church. Doubtless he was helped to such a conclusion by an arrangement then entered into of engaging missionary assistants to lighten, to some extent, the burden which he felt to be too heavy for him to bear. This arrangement subsisted till 1843, and a succession of young probationers, more or less distinguished in after years, filled the office. The first of them, appointed in the autumn of 1836, was Mr. Andrew A. Bonar, in 1878 Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church, and greatly distin- cuished by many gifts and graces. As illustrative of the character and ways of Mr. Candlish, I gladly avail myself of a letter addressed by Dr. Bonar to Mr. D. Maclagan in 1874, and inserted in Mr. Maclagan’s History of St. George's. Dr. Bonar says (5th March 1874)— “Tt was November 1836 that I came from Jedburgh (where I had been for eighteen months partly as a friend and partly as a missionary with Mr. Purves) to be missionary in St. George’s parish. So far as I can remember I was the first missionary. Rose Street and William Street (the schoolroom in each of these streets furnished a place of meeting) were the backbone of my mission district. The hostlers in these streets formed part of my charge ; there was service for them at four o’clock on Sabbath afternoon, and sometimes there might be four, sometimes twelve, sometimes twenty, or even more, who came. Occa- sionally Dr. Candlish preached in the schoolrooms referred to. When 68 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. about to begin my work I asked him, ‘ Will you tell me how shall go about visiting here, and what meetings I should hold on week day and Sabbath ? In his own way he replied, ‘ ΤΊ] tell you nothing. Find out for yourself what may be best. Your way will be opened up for you, And so I was left entirely free to do less or more, and to take any way I pleased. He liked me to call in upon him in a morning now and then (he was not so busy then) to report anything going on in the dis- trict. If I had a case of sickness that seemed to fall to his hand more than mine (e.g. some member of the congregation) I was welcome to call even on Saturday ; and sometimes he most kindly told me what his lecture was to be, and would say, ‘ Now, does this look fanciful?’ or something to that effect. “ As to incidents, it would require a little more time than I can get, I fear, to recall anything of real interest to you. He introduced me to my charge at Collace, preaching on 2 Cor. v. 11 : ‘Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men? That day his sermon shook the self-confidence of an old lady who came to hear, and filled her with concern, In those days his love for Robert M‘Cheyne was very interesting. You know how it was his anxiety for Robert M‘Cheyne’s health that led to the idea of the mission to the Jews, and the visit to Palestine. I have the first draft of the petition to the Assembly to undertake a mission to the Jews in Dr, Candlish’s hand- writing.” Before the matter had been finally settled as to Greenside, Mr. Candlish wrote, 18th August 1836, to his old friend Mr. Urquhart, saying— “Tn regard to my own arrangeménts, you judged rightly that I would find myself in a very embarrassing and painful state of inde- cision. I am not yet quite clear how it mzy, or even how I should wish it to end. Very urgent reasons and representations have been submitted to me against occasioning another vacancy in St. George’s at present. It is not qavite correctly stated in the newspapers that arrangements regarding assistance had been made. I could not at all consent to entertain any definite proposal on the subject. It is not a case for a regular assistant, at least in the public duties ; and if I do remain, all the relief I can look for is, that in the event of my parish being divided by Mr. Moody receiving a district of it as his own, I may procure the appointment of another missionary to help in the superin- tendence of the remaining portion. I still think that I could better ‘manage a smaller and less prominent charge ; but I must be guided in MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 69 part by the opinion of my brethren in the Presbytery, who mostly seem to regard the translation as an evil, and are averse to expose St. George’s congregation, after so many trials, to another and a needless change. My Kirk-session and people generally have acted on this occasion in the kindest manner. I look to the next meeting of Presbytery on Wed- nesday week with some little anxiety. I should be very glad to leave the decision of the matter, after a statement of my views, to them. I have expressed my willingness, if it be thought most expedient, to re- main in my present charge ; and should the brethren so advise, and parties be satisfied, it may possibly end in my withdrawing my accept- ance, which, however, in the present stage, I have not done.” Remaining minister of St. George’s, as it was determined he should do, he was not contented with the appointment of a missionary to labour in a district in the person of Mr. Bonar; but organised a “ Parochial and Congregational Association,” whose objects were twofold,—To ascertain and supply the wants of the parish, in respect of church and school provi- sion; and to act as an auxiliary to the General Assembly’s Committees on the four Schemes of the Church. I have before me a Report of the Association, evidently prepared’ by Mr. Candlish, and I give some extracts from it as illustrative of his views of parochial management and obligation. The Report states -— “Tn regard to the parish and its local wants, what has been done or is in progress, may be stated under three heads. “1 Church Accommodation. [A succinct statement under this head is first given regarding the formation and constitution of St. Luke’s parish and then the Report proceeds] There is still in the parish of St George’s a large population, among whom are upwards of 2800 (exclu- sive of domestic servants) of the poor and working classes. For these no adequate provision is made in the parish church, and many families are destitute of sittings in any place of worship. A missionary assists the minister in labouring among them, and in conducting Divine service at preaching stations on the Sabbath and week day evenings. It is obvious, however, that the seat-rents in the parish church must be very greatly reduced, and additional means of instruction and super- intendence must be provided, before the wants of the parish can be regarded as at all fully supplied. 70 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. “ΤΙ, Schools. [St. George’s parish was already more than usually well provided in this respect. Dr. Andrew Thomson had succeeded in establishing in Queensferry Street one of the best and most largely attended educational institutions in Edinburgh, which was under the superintendence of his Kirk-session, Dr. T. took a warm interest in this school, and undertook the labour of preparing for it a superior set of school-books. What remained to be done for education in the parish, therefore, was somewhat of a secondary and supplemental character. It appears from the Report that Mr. Candlish’s first effort in this direction was to establish a school in Young Street in connection with Mr. Moody’s sphere of labour.] It was found that the admirable local school in Young Street, though in the most flourishing condition, was not adequate to meet the wants of the parish, many of the inhabitants being out of the immediate vicinity, and some of them requiring that instruction should be given at a very cheap rate. District schools, on nearly the same plan with the local school, have accordingly been tried with great success, and without any injury to the original school, which is fully as well attended as before. The effect of their establishment is to supply to the people better and cheaper education than the small in- dependent schools could previously afford, and to bring out many children who did not attend any school at all. “In Rose Street a district school was begun nearly two years ago. Last winter it was removed to a more commodious house than that formerly occupied. The house is rented on a lease of ten years, at £25 a year. The expense of fitting it up as a school was £91, which sum was defrayed by a subscription, chiefly raised by the members of the Kirk-session of St. George’s. There are two apartments. The lower one is occupied as an infant school, under a female teacher, and has been attended by about 40 or 60 children on an average. Such a school in a street like Rose Street, where very young children are left very often on the street without care all the day, is very necessary, and as the principle of it comes to be better understood promises to be very successful. The,upper apartment is occupied as a common day-school, and has been attended by about 90 or 100 scholars. The salaries of the teachers in these schools are not wholly defrayed by the fees, as these are very small. The rent of the schoolhouse also must be paid, independently of the fees. “2. In William Street a school for girls has been established under a female teacher. Boys below six years of age are also admitted. This school is taught in a room, rented on a lease of ten years, at £10 a year. The expense of fitting it up, amounting to £25, was defrayed MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 71 by a special subscription, The numbers in attendance have been about 70 or 80. The girls are instructed in sewing as well as reading and the other ordinary branches. The younger girls and the boys are taught and trained in the elementary parts of education. This school also is dependent upon some support besides the fees. “3. In Thistle Street, in the new parish of St. Luke’s, a school has for some time been taught under the care of the minister. The numbers in attendance have been about 50, and the expense of it is defrayed by a separate subscription. “4, In the local school, Young Street, the class for teaching sew- ing, which had been for some time discontinued, has been resumed, and a female teacher appointed. . . . The school and parochial library have been increased. “TII. Sabbath Schools. In this department the local system has been adopted. Besides meeting the children in the several week-day schoolrooms, other rooms have been got for the purpose in different parts of the parish. The intention is that among the poor and working classes, for whom chiefly these schools are needed, there shall be, if possible, a Sabbath school for each little district, consisting of a small number of neighbouring families, The children of these families are under the special care of the teachers of the district Sabbath school, who visit them during the week, and take an interest in their welfare. There are now nine such schools, including the large school in Young Street, attended by upwards of 270 children. A small allowance is made to the persons who give the use of these rooms, and for that purpose, as well as for lighting and heating the rooms, a fund is needed. There are little libraries now attached to these Sabbath schools, which circulate periodically among them. They are kept up at a trifling expense, “ Τὴ regard to the second general object of this Association, it is proposed that it shall act as an auxiliary to the Committees of the General Assembly, in collecting and transmitting subscriptions and donations for the four Schemes which the Assembly is prosecuting.” [These schemes at the time were Church Extension, Foreign Missions, Colonial Churches, and Education. | It may be interesting to give the names of the office-bearers of the Association. They were—Presidents, Rev. Mr. Candlish, Rev. Mr. Moody. Committee—The members of the Kirk- session ex officits, Rev. Dr. Welsh; H. D. Hill, Esq.; James V2 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. Crawford, Esq.; James Moncreiff, Esq.; Sir Wiliam Seton, Bart. Secretaries—Allan Menzies, Esq.; Rev. Mr. Bonar. Treaswrer—John Cadell, Esq. I have preferred citing the above extracts rather than giving them from the more elaborate and lengthened first Report of the Association, because the latter deals rather with what is proposed to be done, while the former states what was actually bemg accomplished. It may be stated, however, as appears from the first Report, that, as a foundation for future action, the parish was divided into sixteen districts, with several visitors assigned to each, principally for the pur- pose of ascertaining the attendance on the means of grace, together with the state of education throughout the bounds. The carrying on of these various agencies required a con- siderable annual expenditure, and in those days it was more difficult to provide for this than it is now. The most facile means of raising the necessary funds was by a collection at the church door from Sabbath to Sabbath, supplemented, if required, by special subscriptions. But the collections made at the doors of St. George’s Parish Church were by law the property of the managers of the Charity Workhouse. It became very important, therefore, to come to some arrange- ment with these parties, whereby the facilities of a church- door collection might be available for some other purpose besides the support of the poor; and on the 24th March 1839 the Kirk-session were able to make this announcement to the congregation :— 4 “The Kirk-session respectfully inform the congregation that they have entered into an arrangement with the managers of the Charity Workhouse for the purpose of retaining for parochial purposes a por- tion of the weekly collections made at the church doors. The arrange- ment is, that instead of paying over the whole of the collections into the funds of the Charity Workhouse, the Kirk-session agree to guarantee for one year the fixed sum of £425, being the average of the last five years immediately preceding this date ; and the surplus, if any, is to be MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 73 retained by the Kirk-session and administered by them for the good of the parish. In making this arrangement the Kirk-session proceed upon the expectation that the weekly collections will be considerably increased, when it is understood that, instead of the whole being applied to the general purpose of providing for the poor of the city, a part is avail- able, under the superintendence of the minister and elders, for purposes more immediately affecting the welfare of the people under their charge, It is hoped and believed that the congregation will feel more satisfac- tion in giving their weekly alms as they enter the House of God, and that they will give more freely, when they know that they are thus conferring a direct and positive boon on the inhabitants of the parish. The new arrangement comes into operation on Sabbath next, the 31st inst., and the Kirk-session trust that it may tend to keep up among the families of the congregation the good old habit of contributing ‘on the first day of the week as God hath prospered them’ (1 Cor. xvi, 2).” These plans and operations for the benefit of the parish, which were about as complete as anything could well be, and were carried into effect with all the energy and diligence of which the young minister was capable, were not the only objects which occupied his time and mind. So early as 1835 he had begun to take some concern in the affairs of the Church. He had been appointed a member of the Education Committee by the General Assembly of that year, and soon proved himself active in the promotion of a scheme which, ten years later, and in far other circumstances, he employed such gigantic efforts to sustain and extend. I have before me a circular addressed to ministers, subscribed by him, and dated September 1835, urging increased contributions to the Education Scheme in order to enable the Committee to carry out the enlarged operations which were then contemplated. Nor was it only in matters in which the Church to which he belonged was interesting itself that he lent his willing and efficient aid. He was largely concerned in floating a new publication called the Scottish Christian Herald, a serial which began to be published in 1836, and to which he was a frequent contributor. Its aim, as he stated in a circular, 74. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. dated 8th January 1836, was “under the divine blessing to do something towards infusing a religious leaven into the mass of the people, now so industriously plied with all sorts of influences through the abundance of cheap popular litera- ture.” It met with such encouragement that this publication was continued for six years, when it was superseded by others. Thus early was the aid of the young minister of St. George’s solicited and obtained in the promotion of every good cause, and as the years flowed on, his manifold labours, always and in all departments of the most efficient kind, increased to such a degree as would have overwhelmed any man of less quick apprehension and versatility of talent and capacity for labour. To this period belongs a letter, dated 2d November 1836, addressed to his mother-in-law on the death of a daughter, which I give as a specimen of the way in which he sought to administer consolation to the bereaved and afflicted :-— “My dear Mother—The sad intelligence which we received this morning calls for an expression of our very sincere sympathy. Though not unexpected, such a stroke always comes sharply and suddenly at the last ; and, however we may think ourselves prepared for it, still the reality is startling. I was happy to learn from William that you and our dear sisters were tolerably well, and I cannot doubt that you will be mercifully supported under this trial by the same faithful Saviour who has often hitherto helped you. To you, indeed, dear madam, I feel as if it would be almost like officiousness in me to sug- gest those Christian consolations which you have yourself so fully, in deep distress, experienced ; but I cannot help bidding you be com- forted by the thought of the blessed change which our beloved sister has undergone. ΤῸ you, indeed, she is lost for a little season, but what gain is it to herself! For surely you have every reason to entertain most confident hopes of her having gone to be with Christ, which is far better than to remain. Yours has been a very signal privilege in witnessing once and again in your own family the calm peace of a Christian departure ; and, however nature may grieve, yet faith is willing to acquiesce in their departure. You would not desire to detain MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 75 here those who are ripe for the service and the enjoyment of Christ elsewhere. The flesh indeed is weak, and we may yield to our feelings of sorrow. We have not an high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmity. Jesus wept. But let us not sorrow as though we had no hope. What gracious words are those of our Lord, ‘Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you” And again, ‘I will come again to receive you to myself ; that where I am, ye may be also,’ “ Jessie has been sadly distressed during dear Agnes’s illness. It is a terrible aggravation of the trial to her that she has been far away from her sister. I can sympathise with her from experience, remember- ing well my own feelings in a similar case, when I lost a very valuable and beloved sister, and when I could not see her. Jessie was most anxious to see Agnes once more, but she saw that it could not be. I would not have persuaded her to stay, but from a strong sense of what was her duty ; and no other consideration would have made her yield to my reasoning. Her heart is with you. She has suffered much ; but she is, I trust, supported. We have indeed much cause for thank- fulness in this dispensation. How much of mercy has been mingled with severity. Surely it 2s the chastening of a Father, for the good of a child whom He loved, and for our good who remain. I pray God that His dealings with us may be sanctified and blessed, and may all be made to draw us more nearly to Himself. His Holy Spirit will be your Comforter, and it will be happy for us if we are, by all our bereavements, savingly taught to have a closer walk with God, and to set our hearts on the Creator and not on any creature. “T hope to see you on Tuesday, as early as I can in the forenoon. I will leave this by the morning coach. But let us hear from some of you before that time, for we are very anxious about you. After so many weeks of constant attendance on so interesting a sufferer, the heart feels desolate and lonely ; but think that her removal was very timeous, for her continuance would have been very distressing ; and look to the many tokens of God’s kindness with which you are still favoured. As our circle of friendly and family affection is contracted by each new loss, let us be knit the more together in love and in hope.” As yet Mr. Candlish had taken no public part-in ecclesi- astical affairs, and thus, in great measure, escaped from much of the misery caused by one of the sharpest conflicts of the time, . 76 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. in which some very cordial friends became so estranged from one another as to drop even the ordinary courtesies of acquaint- anceship. I refer to what was known at the time as the Moderatorship controversy, in which, as Dr. Chalmers thought, was involved what lay nearest to his heart—the cause, namely, of Church extension. Dr. Lee was proposed by several eminent men to be Moderator of the General Assembly 1837. But Dr. Lee had given such evidence before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who had been appointed by Government to inquire into the state of Church accommodation in Scotland, as induced Dr. Chalmers with all his might to oppose the nomination; and he succeeded in securing the appointment of another by the Assembly. But the strife was embittered by such personalities as entirely to break off all intercourse between those engaged in it. Mr. Candlish, who stood in very close relationship with both parties, endeavoured in 1838 to act the part of a peacemaker, unhappily without much success in the first instance, although two years later the breach was entirely healed, and the heroes of the ten years’ conflict fought hand to hand. CHAPTER IV. First public speech, Assembly 1839—Second speech, Commission of Assembly, August 1839—Dealing with the Legislature—Instruction of people— Hugh Miller— /Vitness newspaper—Mr. Candlish nominated as Professor of Biblical Criticism in Edinburgh University—Letter to Mr. Dunlop— Change of front and appointment not made—Case of Marnoch—Seven Strathbogie ministers —Speech moving their suspension — Lethendy case—Visit to Strathbogie—Dr. Christie’s account of the proceedings at Huntly. Ir was in the General Assembly 1839 that Mr. Candlish made his first public speech. It was towards the close of a long and keen debate; and when he rose in one of the back benches of the Tron Church, where the Assembly was then held, there were unmistakable indications of an indisposition to hear him. He was then a very young minister, having been ordained less than five years previously, and, except in Edinburgh, was almost entirely unknown in the Church, and it was naturally thought that it would be better to leave the debate in the hands of the seniors. Some of us who knew the gifts that were in him shouted to give him a hearing, and he walked along the passage towards the Moderator’s chair, and, passing his hand through his hair, as was his wont when he became excited, began a speech which at once gained him a foremost place among Assembly debaters. Many years later, in the Assembly 1861, Dr. Robert Buchanan, in proposing that Dr. Candlish should be appointed to succeed him in the Moderator’s chair, adverted to this first appearance of his friend, and to what followed upon it, in the following terms :— 78 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. “T remember, as if it had been yesterday, though it is nearly a quarter of a century ago, writing an urgent letter to the then comparatively youthful minister of St. George’s, entreating him to be prepared to take part in the proceedings of the Assembly of 1839, which it was known was to be an Assembly of vital importance to our cause. Up till that time no fitting opportunity had occurred of bringing into the arena of ecclesiastical discussion those extraordinary powers he subsequently exhibited, and the fact of his possessing which, from the very first, no one doubted but himself. His answer assured me that he was no speaker, and that he could be of no use in a debate, and concluded with these words—Novus homo et inexpertus, non loquor. The Assembly met, and it really seemed as if he had been determined to keep his word, At length the grand question of the day came on—the decision of the House of Lords in the Auchterarder case, and the consequent duty of the Church. One motion had been made, openly betraying the independence of the Church in matters spiritual of the Courts of the Church, and which had been met by the noble counter-motion of Dr. Chalmers. Thereafter a third motion had been made, affecting to uphold that independence, but entirely surrendering both it and the rights of the Christian people along with it. It was that hollow middle motion that first opened the mouth of Dr. Candlish ; and the masterly speech in which he tore the mask from it, and scattered to the winds the arguments of its supporters, placed him at once in the first rank of our public men in the great controversy of our Church. If that noble speech has ceased to be as memorable as once it was, it is just as the first speech of a Thomson or a Chalmers, of a Moncreiff or a Jeffrey, of a Canning or a Brougham may have become less memor- able amid the blaze of that wonderful and prolific oratory which these great masters of debate subsequently poured forth upon the world. What great question since that period has been agitated in our Church ? what great interest of humanity or religion has been under discussion in the community around us, on the settlement of which, by his ready and powerful eloquence, his singular tact and wisdom, and his extra- ordinary aptitude for business, Dr. Candlish has not brought to bear a commanding influence? For the business-like order and method with which the affairs of the Church, since the eventful year of her disestab- lishment, have been conducted ; for the intelligence and the energy with which our Church’s various schemes of Christian usefulness have been prosecuted ; in a word, for the high and honourable and well- established position which this Church now holds as one of the great religious institutions of this country, there is no living man to whom MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 79 we are so much indebted as to Dr. Candlish. Serus in calwm redeat— for till it loses him, the Church will never thoroughly know how much she owes to his unselfish, unwearied, invaluable services in her cause.” Very little, in addition to what Dr. Buchanan has stated, needs to be said in order to render very clearly intelligible the state of things in which this first speech was delivered. The Earl of Kinnoul, patron of the parish of Auchterarder, had issued a presentation to the then vacant charge in favour of Mr. Young, a probationer of the Church. But there was an insuperable obstacle in the way of the Presbytery proceed- ing to his ordination and induction. The law of the Church, in conformity with a principle which was coeval with the Reformation, namely, that no minister be intruded upon a congregation contrary to their will, prohibited the Presbytery from adopting that course ; for it was found that, with the ex- ception of one individual, all the male heads of families in the parish were opposed to his settlement. The Presbytery accordingly set aside the presentation. Lord Kinnoul there- upon raised an action in the Court of Session to have it found that the Presbytery were bound in law to take Mr. Young on trials, with a view to his ordination, notwithstanding the opposition of the people. The patron was successful in this action, and an appeal was taken to the House of Lords, by whom the judgment of the Court of Session was affirmed. It was soon after this event that the Assembly of 1839 met, and they were obliged to consider what was to be done, whether the Church was to consent to intrude ministers, or whether it was to stand by its old principle. There was a powerful party, led by Dr. Cook, who were in favour of acquiescing in the decision of the Courts of law. There was a still more powerful party, headed by Dr. Chalmers, who held that the Church had an independent jurisdiction in a matter of this sort. But at this Assembly a third party made its appear- 80 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. ance, whose views were advocated by Dr. Muir, minister of St. Stephen’s, Edinburgh. The following are the three prin- cipal resolutions moved by Dr. Muir, against which the speech of Mr. Candlish was directed -— “ That the decision of the Supreme Civil Tribunal, in the recent case of Auchterarder, has determined that the consequences of this Act do infringe on civil and patrimonial rights, and that hence it is ascertained to have been incompetent for the General Assembly to enforce the said enactment, without having first obtained the sanction of the Legislature. “ That the Church, however, while giving and inculcating implicit obedience to the decisions of the Civil Courts in all matters relating to’ a civil right, ought not to forego the steady prosecution of her own high purpose, of securing more effectually the appointment of ministers not only sound in doctrine and morals, but also suitable to the parishes to which they are nominated. ‘That the suitableness of presentees for the parishes to which they are nominated, and all circumstances and considerations for ascertaining that suitableness in each particular case, whether as to the situation or mind of the people, or as to the special qualifications of the presentees themselves, ought to become the subjects of investigation and judgment to Presbyteries, in the discharge of their solemn duty in the filling up of vacancies, as well as the usual and general qualifications in candi- dates for the sacred ministry.” Mr. Candlish said :—“I think, Moderator, that the time has now come for making some remarks upon the resolutions proposed by my respected father (Dr. Muir)—to which, especially, the learned gentle- man who has just addressed you (Sir Charles Fergusson) has confined himself—as there are features in these resolutions in which it is impos- sible for me to acquiesce. There are, as I conceive, two fatal objections to the resolutions of the reverend doctor. And, in stating my objec- tions, I trust I shall be understood to speak with the utmost deference. First of all, I find expressions introduced into these resolutions, which, unless carefully explained and strictly guarded, would go far to Jay the authority of the Church prostrate at the feet of the civil power, not only in questions relating to the admission of ministers, but in other questions also affecting the most sacred spiritual functions which the Church can be called to exercise. I refer particularly to an expression in the second resolution, which I should have thought had crept in per incuriam, were it not that the idea is twice introduced in the course MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 81 of the motion which I am opposing. It is stated in the second resolu- tion, that ‘in passing this act,’ 1.6., the act commonly called the Veto Act, ‘and carrying it into effect, the Church was influenced by the belief that this act being not only in its nature, but also in its conse- quences, strictly and purely spiritual, there was no necessity to obtain previously the concurrence of the Legislature to it’ And again, it is stated in the third resolution, ‘that the decision of the supreme civil tribunal has determined that the consequences of this act do infringe on civil and patrimonial rights, and hence it is ascertained to have been incompetent for the General Assembly to enforce the said enactment, without having first obtained the sanction of the Legislature’ Now such statements seem to give countenance to a very unsound and dan- gerous principle in regard to the power of the Church to act in matters spiritual. For they seem to admit that, in order to render an act strictly and purely spiritual, and therefore competent, it must be wholly spiritual in its consequences as well as in its nature. It will not then be enough that the act is spiritual in itself, if in any of its consequences it touch civil rights, and hence, in judging of its competency, we must consider not its own proper nature merely, but the results which may follow and flow from it. In point of fact, I doubt if the view here given of the considerations on which the act in question was passed, brings out the real state of the case. I rather think it is not correct to say that, at the time of the passing this act, the Church believed that it was strictly and purely spiritual 72 its consequences as well as in its nature. I suppose that the General Assembly and the several Presbyteries knew very well that the consequences of the act which they passed would inevitably affect, in some degree, the civil interests of individuals. But they never admitted, and we now refuse to admit that, because in its consequences it may infringe on patrimonial rights, it is hence ascertained to have been incompetent for the General As- sembly to enforce it. I must confess that I cannot but look with great alarm on such language, when I remember what has been laid down by high legal authority—that the Church is and must be subject to the civil tribunals of the land, in the performance of every act which, however spiritual in its nature, may be found or held to be civil in its consequences. I fear lest this doctrine may appear, at least, to be in some degree sanctioned by such expressions as those contained in Dr. Muir’s resolutions. For, observe to what we may be led. The admis- sion of members to the Lord’s table, and their exclusion from it, are undoubtedly in their own nature acts purely spiritual ; and yet, will any man say that they may not, in certain circumstances, involve civil G 82 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. consequences,—that they may not operate in such a way as to touch what may be viewed as civil and patrimonial rights? Are we, therefore, to acknowledge that these acts are beyond the competency of the Church, or liable to the review of the Civil Courts? This, indeed, may be in accordance with what has been laid down as law in a certain eminent quarter, in the course of the proceedings which have arisen out of these questions in which we are now involved. It has been broadly and peremptorily said, ‘that every individual in the country, who adheres to its doctrines, is entitled to be a member of the Established Church, ! And this must mean, entitled by a legal right, which may be pleaded in a civil process. Otherwise, the assertion is not in point in the argu- ment in which it occurs, and has no meaning. Now, are we to sanc- tion such a principle as this? Are we to sanction anything which may, in the very slightest degree, tend to give it countenance? And yet, as it appears to me, we are virtually asked to do so in the expression to which I am referring. For it is plainly implied in the expression that it is incompetent for the Church to pass an act which may be spiritual in its nature, but by which, in its consequences, civil rights may be touched. And the effect of this, 1 say, may be to subject the Church to the civil power, even to the extent asserted in the strong opinion which I have quoted. Moderator, 1 do not charge this opinion upon my reverend father who proposed these resolutions. I feel sure that he does not perceive such an import in the expressions which he has adopted. I yield to none in this house in my respect for him. But I view with great anxiety the admission which I conceive to be involved in his language, and I tremble at the very thought of any proposition being carried through this venerable House, which might even seem to sanction so false and dangerous a sentiment. This is my first objection to the resolutions of Dr. Muir. “ But I have a still graver objection to the motion of my respected father. I have looked, and I do not find, from the beginning to the end of his resolutions, one single word recognising the privileges of the Christian people. The reverend doctor has pleaded for the power of the Church—in its courts, composed of its rulers and office-bearers— but without securing and carrying out, along with that power, the rights of the Christian people. And this, to my mind, is substantial Popery. It is a position which must go far to establish a system of spiritual despotism. In truth, it is only when the rights of the people in the Church of Christ are secured that the power of the ruling courts can be safely pleaded ; and it is then, also, that that power can be 1 By the Dean of Faculty in the Lethendy case. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D, 83 pleaded to its highest point. By establishing the privileges of that liberty with which Christ has made His people free, we place ourselves on a fine and noble ground of advantage for maintaining the supreme and authoritative jurisdiction of the office-bearers, as exercised over the people, in their use and enjoyment of these privileges. Only let the people once obtain their distinct and definite standing, and I am not afraid of giving too prominent a position to our Ecclesiastical Courts. If the people are once effectually secured in their rights, I hold that their rulers in the Church may exercise a far more energetic super- intendence, and a more discretionary jurisdiction than now they do ; and may interfere with far more authority in regulating and moderat- ing the proceedings which take place throughout the whole matter of the settlement of ministers. If we recognise their privileges, we may require and expect them to recognise our prerogative. For it is undoubtedly the right and duty of the rulers in the Church to moder- ate and control, with a high Scriptural authority, the movements of all the other parties who act together in this matter. But when we assert the power of the Church in its ruling courts, while the rights of the Christian people are sunk and merged, we are asserting a power altogether unchecked and arbitrary, to which surely the Lord never intended that those whom He has made free should be subjected. “This view is confirmed beyond a doubt by what has actually happened in our own Church. For is it not matter of history—and I state it not with any desire to give offence, but simply as a notorious historical fact—is it not matter of history, that the very same period, during the last and the beginning of the present century, which, under the influence of certain principles and a certain line of policy then more dominant in this General Assembly than now, witnessed the abrogation of the privileges of the Christian people—that this same period saw also the right of the Church, in its courts—its power to judge of presentees, and to decide on the expediency of their settlement, practically set aside and trampled under foot? The Church neither acknowledged the liberties of the people nor the authority of the rulers in that matter, but, in the induction of pastors, acted as the mere agents and servants of the patron alone. If this be called in question, I should be glad to have historical evidence against what I say. I should be glad to have one single instance—one solitary case—pointed out, in which this Church in these days, while it did not reject a presentee on the ground of his being unacceptable to the people, ever did reject him on the higher ecclesiastical ground now maintained, of the inex- pediency of his settlement, or his unfitness for the particular charge. 84 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. I rejoice that matters are now changed in this respect, and that on all hands, and by all parties, as I believe, in this House, this right to judge of qualifications, in the widest sense, is unanimously upheld. But still I cannot but regard it as impossible to place on a sound or secure basis this power of the Church, without constantly and strenu- ously asserting along with it the privileges of the Christian people. And this indeed is one point which, I think, we will gain by the posi- tion which the question has now assumed. By our being led to bring again prominently forward this great element in the discussion, we shall engage on our side the warm affections of the people of our country. I have no doubt the people will go along with us, notwith- standing all that has been said about their being against us in this cause ; though, even if they were, it matters not, our duty is the same. The cause is a righteous one, and if we have not the concurrence of the people, we will even plead it in spite of them. But I have no fears on this head—I have no doubt of the hearty support of the people. And one great advantage amid all our difficulties, which I confidently anticipate from our present position, is, that it will bring us back to the real bearing of the question as affecting the Christian people. It has all along been for the immunities of the Christian people that we have been contending, although circumstances have occurred which may have kept this somewhat out of sight. The ques- tion has been of late perplexed in the eyes of the people by its being connected and mixed up with the assertion of the spiritual independ- ence of the Church; and the defence of that great principle, which became, for a time, our urgent duty, may have tended to cast the other element into the shade. But we are now brought back to the real question at issue, and we have simply to submit to our people this plain and palpable alternative : Will you have us to submit without a struggle and without an effort to a system of patronage the most arbi- trary and unrestricted—to a system of patronage which, but for the milder temper of the days in which we live, might bring back those melancholy times when pot ministers in their robes, but bands of armed men, introduced the pastor to his people? Will you submit, or will you have us to submit, to that iron yoke which your fathers were unable to bear—or will you give us your sympathies and your prayers while we stand up for the rightful power of the Church of Christ, and assert at once and together our prerogatives as the rulers, and your liberties as the people ; while we go respectfully but manfully to the other party in the contract by which we are established, to the State— to the authorities of the nation—testifying to them what is their duty, MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 85 and soliciting them to the performance of it? I have no doubt what- ever that when the question is thus put it will be fully and cordially and unanimously answered throughout all our parishes. But if the trumpet give an uncertain sound—if we merely assert the rights of the rulers in the Church, while we sacrifice or hold in abeyance the people’s liberties, it will be no wonder if we have not—we shall not deserve to have with us the heart or the prayers of one single man who is worthy of the name of Scotsman. I rejoice then, Moderator, amid all our difficulties, in the prominency which must now be given to this great element in our question, the standing which the Christian people have in the settlement of their pastors. We shall rally our countrymen once more, now that the old banner is again broadly dis- played—the banner on which we find clearly and fully inscribed— Cesar’s crown indeed—but along with it, and not less clearly or less fully—Curist’s Crown ; and underneath Christ’s crown, and shielded by it—the purchased liberties of His redeemed people.” At the meeting of the Commission of Assembly in August of the same year Mr. Candlish again spoke on the Auchter- arder case. In the Court of Session the Lord Ordinary, on the application of Mr. Young, had found that the Presbytery were “bound and astricted” to take him on trials, but not ordering them to do so. It was in this position of the case that Mr. Candlish spoke, and mainly in answer to an argu- ment of the Procurator of the Church that the judgment of the Civil Court was not a positive injunction but a declara- tory finding. He said— “1 do not wish it to be understood that, in coming to the resolu- tion which I trust we shall adopt, we take our stand upon what I cannot help regarding, though it comes from so respectable a quarter, as a legal technicality, a refinement which does not at all affect our line of duty. I at once most fully admit that the sentence of the Court of Session, which has led the Presbytery of Auchterarder to refer for advice to this Commission, is substantially, though not in form, an injunction on the Presbytery to proceed to Mr. Young’s trials, and is really as binding as an absolute order. I hold that in conscience we are as much compelled, if we could—consistently with the will of Christ and the laws of His Church, follow such a course—we are under as strong an obligation to yield prompt and ample obedience to 86 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. the expression of the mind of the Court in the shape of a mere hint or intimation as if it bore the character of the most positive and peremptory command. I wish that we should not be understood as taking advantage of any technical distinctions. We have already been constrained before this time to disregard several judgments of the Civil Courts, which were sufficiently direct and explicit ; we have proceeded to act in the very face of their express prohibition ; we have been compelled to do so by a sense of the duty which we owe to the great Head of the Church. We have not done so willingly, but reluctantly, and from necessity ; we have not done so out of any wanton disrespect for civil authority, but because a higher and more sacred authority bound us. And from the same conviction we would be compelled in the present case to disobey a positive order of the courts of law, just as decidedly as we now propose to disregard the simple declaration of their opinion. ..... “Sir, the very fact of the interference of another tribunal in this matter, so far from being an argument why we should change our mode of procedure, while we do not change our judgment in the case, is rather the strongest possible argument why, holding as we still do the opinion that no man should be intruded into any congregation contrary to the will of the people, we should continue to act upon that opinion —it is one of the strongest reasons why we should stedfastly persevere in the very course of conduct which has been challenged and called in question: 7. /./s.. “Has anything been brought forward with regard to Mr. Young tending to show that if settled there he would be truly the minister of more than the two individuals who alone signed his call? Has any- thing been brought forward to show that he would now be admitted by the people as in any spiritual sense their pastor during all the days of his incumbency among them? And are we prepared to come back to this point, that we shall be willing to induct a man when we have the fullest conviction, on the plainest grounds certainty that between that man and the congregation whose minister he should be, there can truly be formed no pastoral relation at all ? Are we prepared now to do what we have already solemnly declared when we have a moral that we cannot in conscience and dare not do ?—for nothing short of such a conviction could justify us in making the stand which we have already made ;—are we now prepared, at the mandate of any civil court, or any authority upon earth, to induct a man as a pastor of the flock of Christ, when that flock conscientiously declare that that man cannot edify their souls ? MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 87 “Sir, the Christian people are not to be lightly disparaged, as unfit, it may be, to have a distinct and distinctly recognised standing in the matter of the formation of the pastoral relation. They are ‘the Lord’s inheritance, the members of the body of Christ’ Such is the language of Scripture. The members gf Christ’s body are not to be spoken of precisely as children ; or if they are children, they are Christ’s little ones, the very least of whom it is not safe to oftend. But they are not to be spoken of as children under age—over whom, however we may graciously consult their inclinations and take their slightest hints into consideration, we must still, as their tutors, their guardians, assert an arbitrary power ; reserving always our right to disregard their voice, and to set over them the very teachers whom they most dislike.” From the time when Mr, Candlish made his first speech in the General Assembly he took his place in the front rank of Scottish ecclesiastics, and at that eventful time such a position imphed much anxious labour of various kinds. Τύ is not at all my purpose to detail the history of that period, and to repeat what has been already well and fully told. The task which I have set before me is to tell what Mr. Candlish did and said in the important transactions in which he took a leading part; and to advert to the history only so far as may be necessary to make intelligible his sayings and doings. The position assumed by the General Assembly made it necessary to deal with two parties—the people of Scotland on the one hand, and the Legislature on the other. The Assembly believed that its position was justified by the Acts of Parliament under which the Church had been established, and that the decision of the Civil Courts in the case of Auch- terarder was really a violation of her constitution, and an in- vasion by these Courts upon her recognised liberties ; and an appeal had to be made to the Legislature to defend her against such aggression, and by some new enactment enable her to defend her people against the intrusion of unacceptable ministers. This appeal to the Legislature was necessary in order to conserve her position as an Established Church. At the same time she declared emphatically and clearly enough, 88 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. that whatever the Civil Courts and the Legislature might determine, she must at all hazards vindicate her right to act out the will of Christ as made known in His word, and could not consent, consistently with her obligations to Him, to intrude unacceptable ministers. While thus approaching the Legis- lature, it was not less necessary to adopt measures for in- structing the members of the Church in what was really at stake in the conflict which had begun. She was accused as a law-breaker, and it behoved her at once to show that she was acting within the lines of her constitution as an Estab- lished Church, and, besides, that no other course was open to her as under allegiance to Christ. Mr. Candlish was called to take an active and leading part in both these lines of action, and, accordingly, we find him busy in the summer of 1839, organising means for the information of the people, while he was one of a deputation to London early in July to deal with members of Parliament. Towards the end of the same month I find him waiting for an interview with Hugh Miller to take steps towards the establishment of a newspaper of which Miller was to be editor. This issued in starting the Witness in 1840, through which Miller did such signal and effective service to the Church. Meanwhile, with a view to the improvement of theological education in the University of Edinburgh, it was proposed, with concurrence of Lord Melbourne’s Government, to insti- tute a Chair of Biblical Criticism, and Mr. Candlish was named as the future professor. On the 14th October he wrote from Bonhill regarding this proposal to Alexander Dunlop, Esq., as follows :— “My dear Dunlop—I have little time to consider or reply to your very kind letter here. But briefly, I may say that I was on the whole disposed to entertain the proposal favourably. On general grounds I should think it very desirable that, if the experiment of a new Chair is to be tried, it should be fairly ; and certainly an addition to the endow- ment would be nothing to the Government when they are about it, and MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 89 much to the Chair. I should like, if I entered on the study necessary for the Chair, to see my way to such a settlement of pecuniary matters as would leave me free to devote my life to it. Certainly, of all the subjects of theological professorships, this is the one I would prefer, as it would compel me to cultivate an intimate familiarity with the Scriptures. And though I have all the work yet to do, I would hope to be enabled to do some service to students in that department. If I am to engage in it I see clearly that it is best to do so at a time when I can hope to make it the business of my life ; and in order that it may be so I simply wish that the maintenance secured be competent. In regard to the whole matter I feel very strongly the difficulty of leaving my present charge. You yourself, I think, first broached the idea of the professorship ; and Welsh, I think, has referred to such a thing half in jest. I should desire to have the serious judgment of friends as to the likelihood of my being most useful, whether in the Church or as a professor. In some views of it the office of professor is greatly the more important. At the same time, one would like to be quite clear in regard to the warrant for leaving the more immediate work of the ministry. In such questions I am very apt to get em- barrassed and undecided, though, on the whole, I conceive that the call to such a professorship, if you and others thought that I could do more good in it, would be to my mind a sufficient reason for leaving an unmanageable charge, and betaking myself to the study of my Bible, and the helping of others to study it. I must repeat that I have the entire work of mastering the science still to do. This is the common predicament of ministers in our country, that, if called to a Chair, it must be on the score of qualifications rather in posse than in esse. Still, if one already qualified can be got, he should be preferred. “ Pray excuse this rambling letter, written in great haste. I hope to see you on Wednesday. I rejoice most heartily in seeing Dr. Welsh’s appointment confirmed." What does he say to the proposal ? and how would he advise me to act? Do not, I beseech you, think at all of what I one day said to you about another appointment. But for your having spoken to me on a similar subject before, it would not have occurred to me to give a hint in regard to it. I have no wish to leave my present charge. I fear the prospect of separation from my con- gregation ; but if I can do good to students by devoting myself to this new branch of their studies, I am willing to listen to the call that may be made on me. Keep this letter private, and believe me ever, yours yery affectionately, Rost. 8. CANDLISH. 1 As Secretary of the Bible Board. 90 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. “Dr. Welsh knows very particularly all the circumstances connected with my relations to my people. He can sympathise with me in regard to their claims on me and my obligations to them. What does he say in regard to my leaving them ?” It serves to show the importance that was attached to the institution of a Chair of Biblical Criticism, and the sense entertained of the peculiar suitableness of Mr. Candlish for the office, that several parties subscribed an obligation for a term of seven years to give £250 annually in supplement of the salary proposed to be attached to the Chair by the Government. The provision made by Government was to confer on the professor the salary of one of the deaneries of the Chapel Royal, at that time of little value, but at the end of seven years certain to be greatly increased. On the understanding that it was the purpose of the Government to appoint Mr. Candlish, the obligation for the supplemental salary was subscribed by J. B. Douglas, A. Dunlop, Archibald Bonar, James Russel, G. Buchan, G. M. Torrance, John Abercrombie, H. Morrison, Lieutenant-Colonel James Wood, William Stothert, Thomas Maitland. After all, the proposal came to nothing so far as concerned the appointment of Mr. Candlish to the office. The Chair, indeed, was instituted, and the difficulty as to salary was overcome by the appointment of a pluralist to fill it. As time passed, the breach between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts became wider, and inter-~ dicts were issued against preaching the gospel in Strathbogie, which Mr. Candlish, as well as many other ministers, dis- regarded. In these circumstances, Lord Aberdeen, in his place in the House of Lords, arraigned the Government for proposing to appoint Mr. Candlish, “ who,” he said, “had very recently committed a flagrant violation of the law.” “This reverend gentleman,” he added, “this Professor of Biblical Criticism, if dealt with by the Court in the same way as any other person, would be immediately sent to prison, where he MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 91 would have leisure to compose his first syllabus of lectures.” The Government gave way, and cancelled the appointment. Thus, a second time, was frustrated the attempt to remove Mr. Candlish from the charge of St. George’s. It seemed to be the will of God that his life-work should be in that charge, and, although his appointment to the Chair in the Univer- sity might have led to the full equipment, at an earlier date, of the New College, and possibly might have averted some of the bitternesses which afterwards arose in connection with that subject, yet one can hardly doubt that, as minister of St. George’s, he rendered more important service to the cause of Christ than he would have done in any other sphere. Meanwhile, however, far other work than that of prepara- tion for the Chair came pressing upon him; a new case had arisen precisely similar to that of Auchterarder. Mr. Edwards, the presentee to Marnoch, in the Presbytery of Strathbogie, had been rejected by the whole congregation. There was this difference, however, between this case and that of Auchterarder. In the latter case the Presbytery were willing and desirous to carry into effect the law of the Church against intrusion; the Presbytery of Strathbogie, at least seven of them, being a majority, had no scruples about intrusion, and, encouraged by the decision of the Civil Courts in the case of Auchterarder, as well as by a judgment of the Court of Session in the Marnoch case, had indicated their determination to proceed to the settlement of Mr. Edwards in the face of the unanimous opposition of the people, and in defiance of the law of the Church. The Church, therefore, had to main- tain a conflict not only against external adversaries, but against mutineers among her own officers. In these circum- stances an extraordinary meeting of the Commission of Assembly was summoned, and held on the 11th December 1839, and Mr. Candlish was unexpectedly called to propose and vindicate the course of action adopted. Mr. Bell has 92 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. this memorandum as to his appearance on the occasion :—“ A very able minister of the Church (Dr. Gordon) had been requested to move the suspension of the seven ministers of the Presbytery of Strathbogie; but he felt unequal to the duty as the hour approached, and Mr. Candlish had to under- take it, with little time for preparation. I distinctly recollect the universal feeling when the still youthful minister of St. George’s rose in his place, that he was specially ordained and accomplished for a great and critical service. Even yet I see the eyes of Cunningham, Begg, Guthrie, and others of that generation, fixed upon him with mingled wonder, admiration, and triumph, as he went on and on in his masterly oration.” From want of space I do not give the speech entire, but only the more important passages in it :— “ Allow me to recall to your attention certain points connected with the discussion of this forenoon, in order that there be no mis- understanding as to the precise form in which the case comes before you. Our time has been hitherto occupied by pleadings at the bar, of a somewhat confused character, tending to involve in considerable embarrassment the real questions at issue, and the duty of the Com- mission in regard to them. “Tt will be remembered, then, that three distinct questions, or rather three distinct methods of bringing on the same question, were before us in the forenoon. First, there is a petition and complaint on the part of the Moderator of the Presbytery of Strathbogie against the proceedings of that Presbytery, in refusing to him the ordinary and competent channel of redress. The second mode in which the case comes before us, is by a petition and complaint from the Kirk-Session of the parish of Marnoch, regarding the proceedings of the Presbytery of Strathbogie, in refusing to recognise the standing of the parishioners. And the third state in which the case appears is in the form of a report given in to this Commission by the Presbytery of Strathbogie— given in, we must presume, in obedience to the instructions of last General Assembly, to the effect that the Presbytery should report to the Commission any change of circumstances occurring in reference to the settlement of Marnoch. This report, however, intimates, not simply the change of circumstances, but also the resolution of the Presbytery to disregard the deliverance of the General Assembly and MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 93 the Commission, as applicable to this matter. So far as I recollect, this is the threefold state of the question, as brought out in the dis- cussion of the forenoon. * “As to the first point, we have disposed of the petition and com- plaint of the Moderator of the Strathbogie Presbytery in regard to the meeting called on the 12th November, so far as to find, by an over- whelming majority, that it is competent for us to entertain it ; and we have now to consider it on the merits. It is not my purpose to enter into the whole merits of this case ; but allow me to say that, whatever may be our opinion of the conduct of the Moderator in not calling the meeting on the precise day suggested by the members who signed the requisition in July, we can have no difficulty on this other point—that the meeting being called by competent authority, to receive certain documents which the ends of justice required they should receive—I think there can be no difference of opinion among us in holding that the meeting, in refusing to receive these documents, acted most irregu- larly. I am willing to concede, although I see no grounds for the con- cession, that the Moderator acted wrongly in not calling the meeting on the day named in the requisition of a majority of the members ; but the Moderator having subsequently called the meeting on his own responsibility, which he was entitled to do at any time, and having called it for the express purpose of receiving certain deliverances of the superior judicatories, of which it was necessary that the Presbytery should have legal knowledge—I say that in refusing to receive these deliverances the Presbytery acted in flagrant disrespect of the authority of these judicatories. I cannot for a moment subscribe to the doctrine that the Moderator was the mere instrument or servant of those who chose to send the requisition, in calling this pro re nata meeting. I maintain that in the whole matter of calling this pro re nata meeting the Moderator acted, and was entitled to act, in so far, independently of the Presbytery. He acted, to be sure, on his own responsibility, and was liable to be called to account by the competent authority—as indeed he would have been, whether he called the meeting on the requisition of others or on his own impulse. I therefore say that we should find that the Moderator exercised a sound discretion in calling the meeting in the way in which he did call it. I beg to recall the circumstances under which the requisition reached him. It must be borne in mind that this Presbytery had already put on their record, with express reference to this case of Marnoch, that in the matter of the settlement of a minister they were bound to regulate their pro- ceedings by the decrees of the Civil Tribunals and not by the 94 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. injunctions of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Their record, with this deliverance, had come up to the superior Church Courts—to the General Assembly and to the Commission in May last—and the latter, the Commission, gave a deliverance, expressly enjoining the Presbytery not to proceed with the trials of Mr. Edwards. In this state of matters the Moderator received a requisition, signed by certain members of Presbytery, to call a meeting—and to call it—for what? Not to receive the deliverances of the Assembly and the Commission. Of these deliverances they did not wish to have legal knowledge ; but they wished the meeting called for the purpose of considering the edict of the Civil Court. Now it may be true that the Presbytery of Strath- bogie had not legal knowledge of the decisions of the Assembly and Commission ; although, if I am not mistaken, the Presbytery of Strath- bogie were formally cited to appear at the bar of the Assembly, and it was because the members were not present that the case was remitted to the Commission. But surely, whether the Presbytery were legally informed of them at first or not, it was plainly the bounden duty of the Moderator, and of every member, to use every competent means to obtain legal know- ledge of them. But, to return to the point: the Moderator received a requisition, asking him to call a meeting on the express ground of the decree of the Civil Court. And you must bear in mind that the Pres- bytery had previously put on their record a declaration to the effect that they were bound to yield obedience to the Civil Court in this matter. Now I say the Moderator exercised a sound discretion, on his own responsibility of course, first of all, in entertaining a natural jealousy of the proceedings of his Presbytery ; and, in the second place, in taking care that they should receive all the documents, and receive them, within such an interval of time before our last meeting in November, as would effectually secure that the end for which the Commission issued their deliverance in May should be fulfilled, and not frustrated. I say the Moderator was entitled to entertain a certain suspicion of his Presbytery in these circumstances ; and to take care that they should receive extracts of the deliverances of the Ecclesiastical, as well as of the Civil, Courts—as well as that their meeting should be held in such time as would leave it in the power of this Commission to vindicate its undoubted authority, and prevent wrong being done in the case. I admit that the Moderator incurred great responsibility in fixing the time and manner of the meeting; but still, I say that he deserves the thanks of this Church and the gratitude of this Com- mission. If he had called the meeting at first, according to the requisi- tion, in what position would we have been placed? We have now MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 95 enough of evidence to satisfy us that the Presbytery were prepared to proceed in terms of the Civil Court’s decree, and in defiance of the ecclesiastical injunction. But what would have been the consequences if they had proceeded actually, as in that case they might have done, to the ordaining and inducting of this presentee to the church of Mar- noch before this Commission could interpose? I entreat the Commis- sion to look at the difficulties in which we would have been placed. I feel that at present we stand in circumstances of the utmost embarrass- ment. As the case now stands, we may be compelled to come to a decision of severity—a decision that may call forth the ery of persecu- tion, and raise an idle clamour in certain quarters. But, on the other hand, if the Moderator of this Presbytery had not acted as he did, the Church would have been placed in a situation of tenfold greater and more distressing difficulty: in the situation—either of allowing her acts to be trampled upon by one of her own Presbyteries, or of being compelled to visit with the most extreme pains and penalties the members who should thus have dared to set her injunctions at defiance. We are therefore under the deepest obligations to the Moderator for his conduct; and we are called upon to approve of his conduct. Admitting that he acted on his own responsibility, and admitting that his Presbytery were entitled to censure him (but to censure him under the review of their ecclesiastical superiors), we are now reviewing, on his petition and complaint—just as, if the course of justice had not been interrupted, we would, at our last meeting in November, have been entitled to review it on his dissent and complaint—we are now review- ing the Presbytery’s sentence, censuring his conduct in the calling of this pro re nata meeting. And I propose that we reverse the sentence. But leaving this matter, I suppose I may presume that, whatever difference of opinion may exist as to whether the Moderator was right or wrong in postponing the meeting—there can be no doubt that when the meeting was regularly called, to receive certain deliverances of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Courts, there are substantial grounds on which we may approve of the conduct of the Moderator in calling it for that purpose ; and of course, if we approve of his conduct, we must dis- approve of that of the Presbytery in breaking up the meeting without taking these deliverances into consideration. “ As to the petition and complaint of the Kirk-Session, I do not deem it necessary to propose any formal deliverance, as their object will be otherwise attained, and the injury which they dread averted. “But now comes the report of the Presbytery of Strathbogie, and that report intimates—very respectfully, but very decidedly —their 96 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. extreme regret that they are compelled not to receive the deliverances of the Ecclesiastical Court, but to attend to the deliverances of the Civil Court. Now I beg the Commission to bear in mind—for there can be no doubt that the sentence which I shall propose will be liable to the censure of being a severe and harsh sentence—that the Presby- tery of Strathbogie have no strong palliation of their conduct, in the way of any strong force applied to them by the Civil Courts. We might have some sympathy with them if a process of horning and caption were dogging their heels, and if, by a delay of a few months, obtained to a certain extent by departing from the injunctions of the higher Ecclesiastical Courts, and postponing the execution of some positive order, they might hope to avert the horrors of imprisonment, actually impending over them. I say, under such circumstances, I could have had some indulgence for their situation, but at present I have none. I might have had some feeling of indulgence for their dread of bodily harm—their fear of being brought into trouble—if that had been the state of the case; though even then I could have had no sympathy with such a method of escaping danger. But you will bear in mind that the injunction of the Commission was itself, in fact, one of delay, and nothing more. It ordered them to do nothing. It sus- pended the case till next Assembly ; and any lawyer here present will bear me out in saying that their compliance with such an injunction, merely of delay, would not at all have impaired their defence in any action of damages that might be brought against them, or in any pro- ceedings by way of punishment against them in the Civil Court. In truth it was not even a direct sentence, an express decree of the Civil Court, to which they proposed to yield obedience, but a mere declara- tory finding. I have formerly maintained indeed, and I still hold, that in foro conscientie, on conscientious principles, a simple declaration of the law on the part of the Civil Courts is to be regarded by the Church as equally binding with a peremptory order, and equally to be obeyed, where obedience is possible. But this evidently applies only to the Church in her supreme judicatory determining the general ques- tion. The case comes to be very different when a presbytery, a sub- ordinate court, about to disregard the authority of their ecclesiastical superiors, plead the dread of civil pains and penalties. There the very ground of such a plea is taken away when the danger is not urgent— when it is seen that, instead of being pressed to execute the civil sen- tence, they show even unnecessary alacrity in doing so—when all that the Church immediately requires of them is merely delay. At the same time, while I state these sentiments, I have no manner of doubt MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 97 that those members of Presbytery acted conscientiously, and that they felt themselves, as they say, constrained, as members of an established church, and also as citizens of the land, to act as they did. And further, I admit that in so far as judging of this conduct with a view to judicial censures—with a view to what the Church may think fit to do in the way of penalty—is concerned, I fully admit that we, the Commission, are not imperatively called upon to take up the matter in that light—that I would at once agree to refer their conduct to the General Assembly, if I had the slightest ground to believe that in the meantime they would take no steps in the way of disobedience to the injunctions of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judicatories. I would not be for visiting them penally—I would leave the matter, in that view of it, to the General Assembly. And therefore, in regard to the deliver- ance which I shall propose, I beg it to be understood that it is a deliverance not of a penal but of a prohibitive character. It is designed simply for the purpose of prohibiting and preventing a serious evil which would undoubtedly arise, if the majority of this Presbytery were left at liberty to take such steps as they propose—steps which would nullify the decision of the General Assembly and the Commission, and altogether frustrate the reasons for which this case stands referred to the next Assembly. “Without wearying this Commission with further prefatory re- marks, I would take the liberty of submitting the motion which I mean to propose. I should mention, however, that I may still have occasion to detain the Commission a little further, as the motion is long, and contains various findings ; and I may ask leave to submit a few explanatory observations as I go along. “The first finding which I propose is to this effect :— “¢1st. That the breaking up, by the Presbytery of Strathbogie, of their meeting on the 12th of November, without receiving the deliver- ances of the General Assembly and Commission, which the Moderator, in his circulars calling the meeting, had intimated that he was to lay before them, was an unwarrantable proceeding, in disrespect to, and in evasion of, the authority of the General Assembly and Commission ; and that the refusal to record a dissent and complaint against the reso- lution come to by them, was an obstruction of the course of justice in violation of their duty,’ “The Commission cannot fail to observe, if the views which I have stated are approved of, that this is a very plain declaratory finding— unavoidable in the circumstances. “The second finding is as follows :— H 98 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. “2d. That the said Presbytery, in pronouncing a determination upon the decree of the Court of Session, at the instance of Mr. John Edwards, formerly presentee to the parish of Marnoch, and upon his memorial, violated the injunction of last General Assembly, that, in the event of any change of circumstances, the Presbytery should report the matter to the Commission, who alone were empowered to determine thereon,’ “This finding refers to the resolution which the Presbytery have adopted and recorded, to proceed at once to the trials of the presentee with a view to his settlement, in terms of the decision of the Court of Session, though they are required by the special injunction of the last General Assembly not to pronounce any sentence at all on this point, but simply to report any change of circumstances to the Commission. They had no power whatever to determine the matter, for they are understood to act in this case under the orders of the Commission. They have not the power, therefore, to determine, but only to report. I do not anticipate that any member of this Commission will venture upon a vindication of the Presbytery in this part of their conduct. “The third finding is :— “<¢3d. That, in resolving to proceed towards the settlement of the said John Edwards in the parish of Marnoch, the said Presbytery acted in opposition to the fundamental principles of this Church and to the provisions of the Act of the General Assembly 1835, “ Anent the Calling of Ministers ;” in disregard of the sentence of the General Assembly 1838, remitting to them to reject the said John Edwards, and of their own final sentence thereupon, rejecting him accordingly ; in breach of the injunction of last General Assembly above men- tioned ; and in violation of the sentence of the Commission of date 28th May, prohibiting the said Presbytery “from taking any steps towards the admission of Mr. Edwards before the next General Assembly in any event.”’ “This finding recites the ecclesiastical rules and injunctions which the Presbytery in this case have violated. They have violated, in the first place, that which we ‘hold to be a fundamental principle of this Church, and, in particular, the Act which the Assembly passed in 1834, to give effect to that principle. There may be some in this Commis- sion who will say that the time has come for rescinding that law. There may even be some who will maintain that the time has arrived when individual members of the Church Courts must be held entitled to act upon their own discretion in regard to giving effect to that law ; but I take it for granted that such will not be the mind of this MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 99 Commission, or of any considerable portion of this House. After the decision in August in the case of Auchterarder, I may assume the Commission to be of opinion that, whatever may be the duty of the Church in this matter, whether or not she is bound to retire from the position which she has assumed, there can be no right belonging to any individual member, or any Presbytery of the Church, to take upon themselves the responsibility of deciding this point. But this is not all. In this particular instance the General Assembly have already ordered this very presentee to be rejected, and the Presbytery have accordingly rejected him selves by taking a protest in regard to all civil liabilities. And a new presentee has been named by the patron. In these circumstances, so far as this vacancy is concerned, this first presentee has been, by the competent Ecclesiastical Courts, finally set aside, and placed wholly out of the field ; and the Presbytery could have no right, after these con- clusive proceedings, in any shape to recognise him as still before them, or to take him upon trials, as if his case was still undisposed of. It was pleaded, indeed, in some of the discussions this forenoon, that the Presbytery only wished at present to take him upon trials ; that this did not imply that they must ultimately settle him ; that they might still be willing to admit the objections of the people at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. But I pray the Commission to remember, in reference to this case, that what the whole independent jurisdiction of the Church is now perilled and staked upon is this—the right of the Ecclesiastical Courts to reject a presentee for no other reason but the dissent of a majority of the communicants in a parish. The Church taking due care, in doing so, to save them- may have been right or wrong in adopting this particular principle. Still her entire jurisdiction, in the settlement of ministers, is involved in maintaining it. For she has asserted her absolute right to reject a presentee in any circumstances whatever, in which she considers the settlement inexpedient ; and in the exercise of this right she has declared that she must consider the settlement to be inexpedient in every case in which the people solemnly dissent. If we compromise this point—however we may talk of giving effect otherwise to the popular voice, and listening to every hint of objection which the people may offer—if we give up this precise point now, we give up all. For I hold this, that if we are to preserve our independence at all, we must have the right of saying peremptorily that we will not settle a man where his settlement would, in our judgment, be inexpedient ; and, if we judge that it is not for edification to settle a presentee among a people by whom he is, as we think, conscientiously rejected, I hold 100 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. that we must have the power of carrying that sentence into effect. It may be wrong in us to listen so much to the people as we do—it may be wrong (though I am far from thinking that it is) to reject a pre- sentee merely because the Christian people dissent ; but it is not, it cannot be wrong, according to every just view of ecclesiastical author- ity, to contend for the power of the Church to reject in any circum- stances whatever, in which she may find it necessary or proper to do so. And here I cannot but say to those who think that the Church Courts have given too much power to the people—let them satisfy the Church that she has done wrong in this matter, and let the Church herself retrace her steps. Let her resolve not always in such circum- stances to reject the presentee. But, at all events, and at all hazards, let the Church still maintain her right to do so, if she think fit—her right, in fact, to reject in any circumstances which may seem to her to call for such a step. “But this is not all. The finding now before us declares further that this Presbytery have violated the injunctions of last Assembly and of this Commission. They have violated the order of the Assembly, who required them not to proceed themselves with the settlement of the parish of Marnoch, but to report any change of circumstances to the Commission. They have violated the order of the Commission still more expressly ; for the Commission, adverting to their recorded reso- lution as to obeying the Civil Court, strictly prohibited them from taking any steps whatever towards the induction of Mr. Edwards, in any event, as they should be answerable. It is clear, therefore, that they have violated the injunctions not of the Commission alone but also of the General Assembly ; and there can be no doubt that what they have done involves contumacy towards both of these Courts. “But here, I pray you particularly to observe, that though we have pronounced this declaration in our finding, it is not because we have any wish to deal with this grave offence judicially, or with a view to the infliction of punishment upon the Presbytery. Even at this stage, after all these proceedings, I would be quite prepared, and would re- joice to move, that the Commission should simply refer the whole matter to the next General Assembly, if only we could obtain from the members of the Presbytery, or from the counsel whom they have chosen to appear for them, anything like an assurance that they would, in the meantime, submit to the authority of their ecclesiastical superiors. I entreat the Commission to bear this in mind, as most important for vindicating ourselves from the charge of tyranny or op- pression which may be brought against us. I should have thought MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 101 that we might have reckoned upon receiving some such assurance from a Presbytery situated as this Presbytery now is. For that end I would have been most desirous that, instead of appearing by a procurator, although we gave them liberty in the matter of the petition and com- plaint to do so, they had thought fit, when they had such a report to give in, to appear this day in person. I doubt not they have good and sufficient cause for being otherwise employed. But even now that they have chosen to appear by their procurator, I am sure nothing would have relieved me more, and I am persuaded nothing would have re- lieved the Commission more, than if, in answer to the question put by Mr. Dunlop, their counsel had given an assurance that they were pre- pared to obey their ecclesiastical superiors. Or if he will now do so— if he will say in their name that they are prepared to obey, and to abide the meeting of the next General Assembly—if these brethren will give us this night, either by their procurator or otherwise—if they will give us an assurance that, till the meeting of the Assembly, they will take no further steps in this matter, I will at once give up the following findings, and gladly agree to refer the question to the Assembly. (1 think, Moderator, we are entitled to take this ground, and to throw the whole burden of any apparent severity in our proceedings, away from ourselves, on those who have made it unavoidable. It is not till we have been driven to the wall—it is not till, in various in- stances, we have been bearded and defied by our own licentiates—it is not till intolerable offences have been committed against all ecclesi- astical authority by our own ordained ministers ; nay more, it is not till, as in this case, it has become absolutely essential to do something for the mere purpose of keeping the question open till the Assembly can dispose of it—it is not till then that we have resorted to anything like penal measures. Often have we been tempted—often have we felt ourselves called upon by our obligations to the Church, to which we are bound by oath, to exercise severity ; but hitherto we have abstained. The Church would have violated no duty, perhaps she would only have better fulfilled her duty, if long ere now she had interfered in a more firm and decided manner than she has ever yet done. I hold that the very first instance of an appeal on the part of a probationer from the Ecclesiastical to the Civil Courts, might have been most summarily visited with the severest punishment, with the highest censure, with deprivation of his license itself. And it is notorious that we have since had repeated opportunities, most aggravated cases, for the inter- position of our authority. The case of Lethendy, for example, was a 102 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. strong and urgent call upon us to proceed with severity. In that case the Church of Scotland was not only resisted in the execution of her own laws by one of her own probationers, but, what was more offensive still, she was insulted by that very probationer daring to take steps, which it could not even be pretended were essential for the mainten- ance of his civil rights—which could have no other end than to sub- ject the Church of his fathers to contumely. When he dragged a presbytery before a civil tribunal—when he compelled a court of the Church of Christ to appear, that they might be rebuked by the civil judges of the land—when he brought a court of this Church into this position—most offensive to all who have any reverence for the autho- rity of the Lord Jesus and the sacred character of His ministers—I say he lost all claim to the forbearance which he so grossly abused, and that there would have been no injustice in depriving him of his eccle- siastical privilege, which the Church conferred and the Church might withdraw, and leaving him to prosecute his civil rights if he chose— but with his civil standing alone. I mention these things merely as proofs of our lenity and indulgence, not as if they were necessary to justify what we may now be compelled to do. Sir, we are upbraided in various quarters with tyranny—with a disposition to deal tyranni- cally with our probationers. We are upbraided with seeking for ecclesiastical superiority, with a lust for clerical power. If we had a single spark of such ambition, Moderator, we might have wreaked our vengeance on these helpless and defenceless men long ere now. They have given us occasion enough ; and, in dealing bare justice, we might have resorted to measures which, with rather more plausibility, might have called down the generous indignation of those who now so cause- lessly exclaim against us. “ But now, at last, we have reached the limit of forbearance. The time has come, not for vengeance—not for purishment—but for pre- vention. We must take strong and decided measures. It is painful to think that we are now, for the first time, called to pass a sentence of severity ; and it is doubly painful to be myself the first publicly to propose it. But I am relieved when I think that, in proposing this sentence, I am not actuated, and, in adopting it, the Commission will not be actuated, by any personal or vindictive feeling, but solely by a desire to prevent irreparable wrong from being perpetrated. We stand on the defensive—simply and exclusively on the defensive. In last General Assembly steps were taken to secure a suspension of hostilities between the Church and the State, while the negotiation for a settle- ment of the whole question was going on. I care not what may be MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 103 said in some quarters about our re-enacting the Veto regulations, and transmitting them for the consideration of presbyteries, as if this were inconsistent with such a course. For every one knows that we could not have abstained from doing so without giving up the measure alto- gether. All due precautions, however, were taken to prevent any new collision with the Civil Courts. It is true we did continue to prosecute the warfare in all competent and legitimate modes, by appeals to public opinion and to the governing and legislative authorities of the land. We never pledged ourselves to silence or inactivity. On the contrary, we avowed our resolution to strain every nerve with a view to bring about a better understanding and a better practical arrangement on the great subject under debate. But most effectual measures were taken to prevent any new collision—to avoid everything that might raise new difficulties in the way of an arrangement or aggravate un- pleasant feelings, so far as the mutual clashing of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts might be concerned. Would that we had been met with similar conduct on the part of patrons and probationers. There was no necessity for these hasty proceedings. Every motive of duty—every consideration of expediency—every feeling of a regard to the best interests of the country, and to the authority of the courts of law themselves—dictated the propriety of a suspension of hostilities, and should have led our opponents to meet us in a kindred spirit, and to do nothing to increase the embarrassment while our efforts towards a settlement were going on. Instead of this, what has been the con- duct of those on the other side? I do not know by whose advice they are acting, but there does appear to be a systematic design somewhere -—a desire shown, not in one instance but in several, that matters should be precipitated prematurely to a crisis. What have they been doing since we in last Assembly resolved to suspend, during the pre- sent year, every new case of a disputed settlement ? Was it before or after the meeting of last Assembly that the unseemly spectacle was ex- hibited of a court of Christ’s Church being dragged forward to receive a rebuke from the civil tribunal? Was it before or after the meeting of Assembly that they pressed for a new judgment in the case of Auchter- arder? And is it not deplorable now, that when our object is to hang up the whole matter till next Assembly, we should be driven to the necessity of adopting a measure which it pains my heart to propose, and which it must deeply grieve this Commission to entertain? But there is no help for it ; I therefore read the proposition. «ΠῚ 6. Commission therefore, after these findings, ‘ reverse, rescind, and make void the whole proceedings of the said Presbytery at their 104 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. meetings of the 12th November and 4th December ; approve of the conduct of the Moderator with reference to the former of these meet- ings ; dismiss the memorial of the said John Edwards, and prohibit him from applying to the said Presbytery, or any of the members thereof, to be taken on trials, or to be admitted to the pastoral charge of the parish of Marnoch, and from presenting himself to the said Presbytery, or any of the members thereof, to be tried or admitted as aforesaid ; with certification, that if he violate this prohibition in any part thereof, he shall be holden and dealt with as contumacious ; and instructing the said Presbytery, in that event, to cite him to appear and answer for his contumacy before the stated meeting of Commission in March, and before the next General Assembly, failing such meeting of Commission.’ “The Commission will observe that this is the first time the pre- sentee in this case has been directly intermeddled with, and it is clearly right now to warn him.” Mr. Candlish concluded by formally proposing the suspen- sion of the seven ministers. Although the Commission resolved in terms of Mr. Cand- lish’s proposal, and suspended the seven Strathbogie ministers, the precaution was in vain. They were determined to intrude the presentee to Marnoch, to set at defiance their ecclesiastical superiors, and to disregard their ordination vows, knowing, as they did, that their action would be sustained by the Civil Court, and upheld by the whole party in the Church who were opposed to non-intrusion. Their determined resistance to the injunctions of the Church ended, as it could not but do, in their subsequent deposition from the ministerial office. Meantime the conflict between the Civil and the Ecclesiastical Courts was getting more and more complicated. In the speech I have quoted Mr. Candlish refers to the Lethendy case. The Crown had presented Mr. Clark, a probationer, to the parish of Lethendy, as assistant and successor, and his pre- sentation was set aside on the ground of the opposition of the people. In this case the patron’s rights were not pleaded. On the contrary, the Crown issued a new presentation to Mr, MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 105 Kessen, and left Mr. Clark to fight his own battle. He sought and obtained .an interdict from the Court of Session against the Presbytery proceeding with the ordination of Mr. Kessen, although the Presbytery declared that in ordaining him they did not pretend to determine any question as to his stipend, which was, a matter at the disposal of the Civil Court. The Presbytery, as instructed by the General Assembly, dis- regarded the interdict, and for this offence were summoned to the bar of the Court, and rebuked and threatened. The suspension of the Strathbogie ministers made it neces- sary to supply ordinances for their people, and it was evidently quite as necessary to inform the community on the great principles that were at stake. This double necessity involved a great deal of agitating and exhausting labour, of which Mr. Candlissh had his full share. On the 26th December he wrote to Mr. Dunlop— “Cunningham and [I start to-morrow, if all is well, at nine for Perth, where we have a meeting in the evening. The plan which Abercrombie Gordon has devised for us is rather formidable. We are to go on on Saturday to Aberdeen, and so to Huntly and Keith, where we preach on Sabbath. On Monday morning we are to meet the Strathbogie Presbytery at Huntly ; then proceed to Elgin and hold a meeting in the evening. On Tuesday we are to go on to Inverness, where there is a meeting on that evening. On Wednesday, Gordon proposes we come back to Strathbogie, and perhaps meet the Keith and Huntly folks, and expound to them. Then on Thursday we hold the Aberdeen meeting.” From Dr. James Christie, Dundee, then practising at Huntly, I have an account of the Sabbath work by Mr. Cand- lish at Huntly. On the Sabbath preceding, Mr. Simpson, Trinity Church, Aberdeen, had preached to a very small con- gregation of fifteen or eighteen people in the Gordon Arms Inn. Dr. Christie says— “ At the conclusion of the service it was intimated that next Sabbath the Rev. Mr. Candlish of Edinburgh, the renowned debater and popular 106 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. preacher, would preach at Huntly. It was at once seen that the limited accommodation of a room in the hotel would be insufficient to accommo- date the crowd which was certain to assemble to hear the celebrated preacher, and it became necessary that some arrangement should be made at once, as the time was limited. An arrangement was forthwith entered into with Mr. Beattie, the innkeeper (with some difficulty, as he was quite opposed to the views of the movement party), to have the inn court covered over and seated for the occasion. An understanding was come to that a rent of £15 should be paid for the use of the court for that day, all expenses being paid besides. On Saturday Mr. Cand- lish arrived by mail coach, and was informed of the arrangements made for him. On the Sabbath, in the midst of a very severe snowstorm, a congregation supposed to number 1500 assembled ; and those who could not find accommodation under the roof of the inn, or its court, stood without in the square, the preacher making himself be heard by most, if not all his hearers, by standing as near as possible in the centre. £15 as a rent for such accommodation in such weather was a burden which could not be borne, especially as the purses of those who then adhered to the non-intrusion cause were none of the heaviest. At this juncture, when those who took the lead in Church matters were much difficulted as to future accommodation (there being only two halls in the town for public meetings—one belonging to the Duke of Rich- mond, who was much opposed to the movement party in the Church, and the other to a worthy elder of the Established Church, but who subsequently joined’ the Free Church), a friend of mine, Mr. Alexander Stewart, solicitor, gave me the hint that if properly gone about the old Roman Catholic chapel, then unoccupied, might be purchased. I at once told Mr. Candlish, who entered into the matter very cordially. On the Monday morning, before daylight, I called on Mr. Candlish at the hotel, with a lantern in my pocket, to be used when we came to the chapel, and which might not discover our motions prematurely. We waded through the deep snow, and on entering the chapel Mr. Candlish was quite delighted with the place, and at once said, ‘Do secure this place at any cost’ Mr. Candlish breakfasted at my mother’s house (I consider it due to her memory to say how cordially she entered into the Church’s movements, and how highly she valued our increased privileges), and, after seeing him off by the mail coach to the south, I mounted my horse and rode on to Presthome, near Fochabers, the residence of Dr. Ryle, the Roman Catholic bishop of the diocese. Fearing any interruption (for so strong was the feeling in the district that had it been known on what errand I had gone, I believe I might MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 107 have been anticipated and prevented accomplishing my object), I did not draw bridle ere I reached my journey’s end, a distance of twenty- two miles in deep snow. I saw the Bishop, who referred me back to Mr. Stewart, and next day I purchased the chapel on behalf of the Church. It was at once enlarged, and for three years a large and in- terested congregation assembled in it. I cannot remember if Mr. Candlish was again in Strathbogie until he came to open the Free Church there ; but this I know, that many have cause to bless God for the Disruption and its blessed fruits.” Thus, it appears, that in his manifold labours Mr. Candlish raised up ready and zealous coadjutors to forward his move- ments. ‘CHAPTER V. Two non-intrusion meetings in Edinburgh—Speeches of Mr. Candlish—Meet- ing in Glasgow—Speech on spiritual independence—March meeting of Commission—Speech on interdicts against preaching— Railways and Sabbath observance—Death of two of his children—Letter to Mr. Dunlop —Goes to Newcastle—Writes again to Mr. Dunlop—Liberwm arbitrium —Lord Aberdeen’s bill—August Commission—Libel against seven Strath- bogie ministers ; speech—Speech on government inspection of schools— Vacancy in Glasgow Theological Chair—‘‘ Engagement” in defence of the Church—Movement for abolition of Patronage. On the 14th January 1840 two public meetings on non- intrusion were held in the Assembly Rooms, Edinburgh, one in the afternoon and the other in the evening. The Marquis of Breadalbane presided at the afternoon meeting, and the Lord Provost at that held in the evening. Mr. Candlish spoke at both meetings, moving a petition to Parliament to defend the liberties of the Church and people of Scotland. At the afternoon meeting, among other things, he said that the object of the Church was “to get effectual assurance that this Church shall never be obliged to settle a minister in a parish whom its communicants cannot welcome in the Lord. I call upon you in hearf and hand to support the Church and the Church Committee in prosecuting this noble enterprise, to pledge yourselves by standing forth and showing that you will rally round us, for without your aid and your cordial concurrence, humanly speaking, our cause is gone. There lies a petition at the door; it will be carried to the houses of many of the citizens; and we call on you, as you value the MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 109 Church for which your fathers bled, as you reverence the Lord Jesus, the Head of the Church, as you esteem highly your privileges as members of the Christian community ; we call upon you to give your hearty influential support to the measures which the Church is now adopting for having this great principle ratified and secured.” At the evening meeting he spoke at greater length, enter- ing more fully into the subject. He said— “Tf it rested with us to make our choice whether we would intrude unacceptable ministers, or lose the temporalities of the benefice, we would be prepared to make our choice ; we have made it in the case of Auchterarder, and by that choice we are prepared to abide. But that is not the alternative which is submitted to us now. We are now called upon to intrude, or if we do not we must pay large damages, or submit to fine and imprisonment. This is not to be confined to the ministers of the Church, but it reaches to the members of the Church, for the Court of Session, in those rapid strides of intrusion which they have made into our province, have gone so far as to tell the Christian people in one parish that they must relinquish their spiritual right, and cease to discharge their spiritual duty, or they must submit to imprisonment and fines. This makes the necessity of appealing to the Legislature still more urgent. I trust that petitions like this will become general over the country, and that we shall raise—I do not say agitation—but that we shall raise such a constitutional, earnest, and unanimous application to the Legislature, that one session shall not be allowed to pass without something being done to restore peace to the Church and good order to the community. “Tt is, I believe, unprecedented in the annals of our city, that in one day two such crowded meetings should have been assembled, as we have this day witnessed, to wish us success. Such an expression of feeling on the part of this great city cannot fail to have an influence directly with the Legislature, and indirectly with the country. I can- not anticipate the issue of this struggle. I know not how short or how long it may please Almighty God to keep us in the furnace of affliction. He may have ends of His own to serve by prolonging this discussion. We did indeed at one time anticipate that the Church was about to enjoy rest from controversy, and that peace was about to be restored to our Zion—a peace more thorough, and, we trusted, more lasting than the Church had witnessed for many a long day. At that time, 110 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. before this wretched Auchterarder case, this pitiful struggle about the mere stipend, was brought into the Church, all parties were lending heart and hand to advocate Christ’s cause at home and abroad. I ask if ever such unanimity of good works had before been witnessed in our land. It seemed as if even those in the Church whom we have been wont to regard as opponents, and of whose policy we were accustomed to speak in no measured terms—it seemed as if even they had been softened by a better spirit than that which prevailed for a long and dreary century. We thought they had come over to unite with us in the prosecution of those schemes of Christian philanthropy which, we confidently say, must be regarded as the real end for which the party to which we belong ever desired an ascendancy in the counsels of the Church. It may be that we interpreted these pleasing symptoms erroneously —that we presumed too hastily that our warfare was and that the Lord’s dis- pleasure for our backslidings was past and gone. It may be that the Lord is now teaching us another and a salutary lesson—that He may often see fit to revisit and bless His Church, not at the end, but at the commencement of her trials. But I cannot help anticipating the accomplished, and our iniquity pardoned blessed effects which might be expected to flow from a speedy settle- ment of this question in restoring the unity and harmony of the Church : it would bring back the day which we have already seen—the first day when a special meeting of the Commission of the General Assembly was held for no other purpose than to consider the question of a mission to the Jews. These are the objects we desire to see accomplished. We have no love for wrangling. We would much rather provoke each other to love and to good works ; and we wish— from the bottom of our hearts we wish—that our brethren who, how- ever they may feel themselves conscientiously bound to obey the law as it stands, could have no such conscientious difficulty in consenting to its alteration—most heartily do I wish that they would give us an opportunity of bringing back these halcyon days. Peace! my lord! We love peace, but we cannot consent to sacrifice principle to peace ; and we believe that the maintenance of our principles is the only ΒΗ: parative for a pure, stable, and permanent peace. “ But further, I confess that I anticipate peace not only within the borders of our own Zion, but peace between Ephraim and Judah. Allusion has already been made to our brethren the Dissenters or Seceders. I go along with a great part of what was said by my respected brother respecting their efforts in many a good cause, though I think that surely, in referring to one great public question, the MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 11 emancipation of the slaves, he did not remember one whom, especially within these walls, an Edinburgh assembly will not soon forget. The meeting has anticipated me—it is not necessary to pronounce the name which was upon my lips ; I need not say I referred to him in regard to whom it cannot but be the earnest, though the vain, wish of every one present, that in this crisis which has come upon us he had been spared to meet it. But the events of man’s life, and of the Church’s history, are in other hands than ours ; and it may please God to show, by the removal of the mightiest champions in the time of need, that He can make even babes and sucklings bring glory to His name. But in reference to our brethren the Dissenters, I will tell you of a vision which has flitted across my imagination. We have been engaged in con- troversy respecting two principles for many years. We have contended for the principle of a National Establishment of religion, and on this ground, among others, that the establishment of religion was quite con- sistent and compatible with the most thorough recognition of the Church’s spiritual independence and of the people’s spiritual privileges. This was our argument, and in maintaining it we were accustomed to point to our beloved Church as a Church in which might be seen exemplified and embodied a near approach to the ideal of a pure National Establish- ment. Many conscientious Dissenters opposed us on the ground that they did not see that the National Establishment of religion could be consistent with the spiritual independence of the Church. May it not be part of the purposes of God, by the controversy in which the Church has still more recently been engaged, and of which we hope to see a successful issue, that many of our brethren may be convinced that they may consent to the establishment of religion without giving up the establishment of the independence of the Church as a Church of Christ, and as guardian of the rights of the people whom Christ has bought. It may be—I would to God it were—the result of this discussion, and of the settlement of this question—to satisfy some—I would say many —nay, all of our seceding brethren, that as the worst day the Church ever saw was when she surrendered to the civil power her dear-bought right, so they may now perceive the possibility of the Church having its privileges recognised and yet remaining an Established Church. Might we not hope that then their bowels would yearn towards the Church which their fathers so reluctantly forsook, and that we might once more have a united Church in a united land.” He concluded by saying— “T trust that this night will witness many hundreds of your 112 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. signatures to the petition now lying at the door. I trust also you will feel that, by signing this petition, you will only half discharge your conscience and your duty—that every man will feel that the question concerns not his own soul only, but the souls of his neighbours, who, under a cold ministry, may perish for lack of knowledge. I trust that all present will feel it their duty to labour in their respective spheres to diffuse information, and to excite zeal in this cause—the cause of God and truth. I trust that this great meeting—I hope I may add this Christian assembly—having petitioned an earthly Legislature, will feel themselves bound to give the Church the benefit of their appeals to the throne on high. I trust we shall continue to prosecute this enterprise more and more in the spirit of earnest prayer. Would to God that the day were returned when not a man entered into his closet for the day—not a family gathered round the domestic altar— not two or three met in the Lord’s name—without, along with their petitions for the prosperity of their own souls, remembering Zion and praying for the peace of Jerusalem.” At a great public meeting held in Glasgow early in Feb- ruary, Mr. Candlish, in supporting a resolution, discussed the spiritual independence of the Church as flowing out of the headship of Christ, and then concluded as follows :— “Ts it to be tolerated that we are to be called on, on the first bid- ding of a single court in the land, to surrender what we consider our sacred rights, secured to us by that most sacred of all national acts, which united two great countries under a solemn national treaty, on the faith of which each party surrendered part of its power, trusting to the honour of the other? [5 it to be tolerated, that at the first whisper of a civil court we are to give up all that was struggled for in days of old—the rights of Christ’s people—the power of Christ’s office-bearers to govern solely and exclusively His Church? I trust that the Chris- tian people of this land will enter with somewhat more feeling, and a better judgment into the pfesent position of the Church of their fathers. We do not ask them to go with us into all the details of those pro- ceedings our Church has adopted—they may not understand, they may not approve of them all—but this we do expect, that as they value the constitution of their country, as they value the Church of Christ, they may, at all events, rally round us when making our stand now, and seeking to have that constitution recognised in all its integrity, and that Church established again in all its freedom. This is our sole MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 119 demand. We are willing and ready, whatever interdicts may issue, whatever damages the juries of our country may give, whatever expenses may be heaped upon us, whatever rebukes may be dealt us from the Bench, whatever years of imprisonment may fall to the lot of our ministers and people,—we are ready to take our stand and say we will not abandon the privileges Christ has conferred upon His Church. The State may take away our established privileges, the State may disestablish us to-morrow, let it do so on its own responsibility ; but, meantime, we cannot forget our allegiance to our Lord. We will not go and preach in the pulpits from which we are interdicted, but we will go, as I have done already, and preach in the open air.” At the meeting of the Commission of Assembly in March, speaking of the interdicts granted by the Judges against preaching in the parishes of the suspended ministers in Strathbogie, Mr. Candlish said— “The Court of Session did not merely prevent the Presbytery, and ministers sent by them, from going to the Church—they did not want it—but from going within the bounds of the parish and offering to preach the word of God. He begged to say—and he had better reason for saying it, better evidence of the facts of the case than those who ventured on a contrary assertion—he said that in these parishes, where the ministers of the Church of Scotland had been prevented from preaching the gospel, there had been, by the blessing of God, a work in progress, which he believed he was safe in saying, these parishes had not witnessed anything like since the Reformation. There were tan- gible proofs of the accuracy of his statement which would defy contra- diction, and which utterly controverted the statements of those who averred that the preaching of the Word by the ministers appointed by the Committee had turned men away from the truths of the gospel, and created heats and divisions in the parishes. Among the good effects which had followed that agitation, he might mention the conversion of several Roman Catholic families residing in the district. No doubt that would create heats and divisions and excitements ; but he could only say that there were many districts in the north, and not far from Aberdeenshire, where it would be no great evil to see such excitements of far more frequent occurrence. If there were any who would say that the ministers who had gone to these districts and laboured dili- gently in their holy vocation, who had preached the essential truths of the gospel with a fervour and unction not very familiar there ; if there were any who would assert that they had created heats and divisions, I 114 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. he would venture to say that they were not competent judges of what the truths of the gospel really were, and preferred coldness and dead- ness to the living faith which that gospel inspired. It was not for them to boast of what might come out of a movement which was re- garded by some as so alarming, nor to exult in offences or troubles, because out of them good might arise. But it was right to bear testi- mony to the work of the Lord; it was right to bear testi- mony to those who had been honoured to win souls unto Christ. The ministers who were accused of turning men’s minds from the gospel had preached it in season and out of season, in doors and out of doors. They had gone from house to house, from family to family, and opened up the will of God to those who were asking the way of eternal life ; and was it for a moment to be endured, that labours such as these were to be stigmatised as attempts on the part of the ministers of the Church to create heats and divisions, and to lead men’s minds away from the blessed truths of the gospel? He could speak of some of the effects produced—men thirsting for the word of God—on Sab- baths and on week-days resorting eagerly to sermons and prayer-meet- ings, seeking private counsel from godly ministers, giving tokens of awakening, of conviction, of deep impressions of a real and saving change ; but he would forbear. It was due, however, to the ministers of the Church who had gone into these parishes, it was due to the Church itself, that when so much was said of the difficulties into which the Church was brought, and of the effects of its proceedings in these northern districts, it should be known throughout the Church and the country that, according to the testimony and judgment of men most competent to judge, it were well that such excitement were extended. It was quite plain that in circumstances like the present, when such extraordinary measures were resorted to, many unpleasant consequences must be apprehended and experienced, and far be it from him to say that the proceedings of the Church had not produced any results which he would not have deprecated. But it was according to the plan and purpose of God, and often exemplified in the history of the Church of Christ, that when she wag brought into deep waters God had signally blessed her, and honoured her for the conversion of many souls. “ He was not one of those who expected a speedy rescue for the Church from her present difficulties. He saw them thickening on every side. He saw this very day sixty or seventy ministers in the north ready to embarrass them still more, committing themselves to the full extent to an approval of what the suspended ministers had done, ready to go all lengths with them in resisting our authority. He MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. ELS saw on every side misrepresentations and misunderstandings, and he was not confident of a speedy end to these troubles. The Church had sinned far too grievously not to expect that her punishment might be prolonged. But should the Church be destined to suffer still more— should that convulsion be the breaking up of our Establishment, then Iam persuaded it must be the first breaking up of all institutions, civil and sacred, in the land. If it should be so, their duty was the saine ; they could not help it if it should be so, as sometimes they were driven to fear (though God forbid that their fear should be realised) ; still it was satisfactory to know that while their clear duty was to up- hold the Church, as their forefathers had done in former times, they might trust that in the very breaking up of His Church’s prosperity, the Lord might be intending to bless her labours in a manner beyond the reach of human foresight, making her in her fall more truly glorious than in her pride. “We have not abandoned the principle that no man shall be in- truded into a congregation against the will of the people. It is by maintaining that principle that we have been brought into all our diffi- culties. Even the last interdict was granted avowedly for the purpose of preventing that principle from being carried into full effect. It is in this attitude of a Church protecting the liberties of a Christian people that we desire the Legislature to interpose its authority to prevent unacceptable ministers being forced on reclaiming congrega- tions, and to prevent us from being compelled to force them. It is in this attitude that we proceed to make our complaint against these new interferences—to complain of the offence of the Civil Court in the invasion of our religious powers and prerogatives asa Church. This offence against us—this breach of the established law—this invasion of the ecclesiastical province—must 4in itself be sincerely deprecated by all who think correctly on the limits of sacred and civil things. It must excite the honest indignation of all who are not prepared to establish in a single court a general tyranny—who value the free con- stitution of their country, as well as the privileges of the Christian Church. And it is doubly to be lamented when it is considered that all this evil arises out of the attempt to overbear the liberties of the Christian people in the exercise of their sacred rights and responsi- bilities, secured to them by their great Head, and connected with their own and their children’s eternal wellbeing.” Mr. Candlish was not so engrossed by the conflict between the Church and the Civil Courts in which he was led to take 116 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. so prominent a part as to prevent him showing his interest in, and lending his powerful advocacy to, whatever tended to the advancement of the cause of religion. The year 1840 was signalised by the opening of several railways in Scotland, and this gave rise to discussions on the observance of the Sabbath, and in these he took his full share. He spoke at a public meeting held in Edinburgh in March, and pleaded the divine authority and perpetual obligation of the Sabbath as the only ground on which to make a stand against all encroachments on the rest of the holy day. While all this public work was going on during this year, Mr. Candlish experienced severe domestic afflictions in the death of two of his children. His fourth child, Walter, born on 10th August 1839, died on the 21st February 1840. He thus registers the event— Mortuum, eheu! 21st Feb. 1840; sepultum 24th Feb. 1840. Talium est regnum coelorum. Fiat voluntas tua.” His third child, Jane Smith, born 14th June 1858, died on 30th March, and the event is thus regis- tered—“ Mortuam 30th March 1840; sepultam 2d April 1840, juxta fratrem. οἱ ayyedos avtwy ev ουρανοῖς δια σαντος βλεπουσι TO προσῶπον του TATpOS μου TOU εν ουρανοις." ᾿ Writing on the 31st March to Mr. Dunlop, who was in London pressing upon Government the claims of the Church, he says “1 was detained in Glasgow from Friday till yesterday by a severe cold, toothache, and general over-fatigue. I wrote, however, giving directions that any letters’ of yours should be opened, and their con- tents, so far as necessary, communicated to Shaw Stewart. In this way the Committee got your intelligence, and your first letter received the more favourable explanation of your second and third. The Committee meet again to-morrow. I do fervently hope it may be no new mirage, but firm ground we see before us. It has pleased God to take away another of our little children—the youngest that was left. She was long delicate. We thought her rather better last week. When I re- MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 117 turned I found she had gone yesterday morning. You may imagine I have little heart to write about public matters. But I shall be anxious to hear to-morrow, and shall attend the committee. I left Mrs. C, who went with me to Glasgow, among her friends. This aggravates our distress. We expect her to-night. These are sore trials. I write mainly to express my earnest hope that you will not come away pre- maturely. If Government are going to do anything, it is the more necessary to keep at them and other parties. Consider how many of our enemies are now sneaking about high places. Make up your mind to remain a little yet, and rather write for a reinforcement. I think Welsh might be induced to join you; and if a sufficiently rabid Tory were conjoined with him—say Hog, or Simpson, Kirknewton— we might send him. Write about this. I have made up my mind not to go to the Glasgow sacrament as I intended. I have no mind for gadding about just now. Still, if you consider it necessary and right, I will be at Newcastle on Wednesday the 15th, all the rather if you will agree to meet me there, coming down from London on purpose, if necessary. Together we may be able to effect some good. But I would not like to be alone, and there is no other of the deputation I care to consult with, so you must agree to meet me. It will need both of us together to effect any good. “ About your question. Certainly the call is far better than the veto, and if the call be adopted, the range of callers must be enlarged. At the very least it should be all male communicants, not heads of families. I don’t see much objection to making it‘ members of the church.” By that phrase I would understand all above a certain age who are regular sitters in the church, and admissible to privileges, 7.6. not under scandal, not ignorant nor immoral. This would include those in Highland parishes who have their children baptized, and are in every proper sense members of the Church, though they do not communicate. 1 do not see anything very objectionable in principle in this—that all who subject themselves to the discipline of the Church as regular members of a congregation should be entitled to call. Practically it might do good in some instances. It would establish the principle that the Church’s discipline ought to extend not merely over those who apply for baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but over all who statedly submit to her rules and wait on her ministry. The Church would, of course, be bound to inquire into their principles and conduct. Then it would take away the appearance of tempting men to com- municate by holding out a right to be exercised, and at the same time the Church would still be at liberty to deal with members of congrega- 118 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. tions pertinaciously despising the ordinance of communion—for remoy- ing scruples, or visiting an offence, as the case might be. I suppose it is chiefly with a view to Highland parishes that the modification is suggested. Then, something of this kind would very soon have been forced on the Church at any rate, under the existing veto law. Right or wrong, the practice of non-communicating there established cannot be soon or rashly meddled with, and we would have found ourselves obliged to accommodate our regulations to the practice. I fancy there is no warrant in old statutes or history for the distinction between the two sacraments which our law now makes. If men have their children baptized, they are as truly communicants as if they sat at the Lord’s Table. Whether they should be admitted to the one ordinance when they do not come to the other is a different question. If their not communicating is from a scruple, it must be tenderly handled. If from contempt, clearly there is a case for discipline. Then young men, not yet communicants, may be worthy members of a congregation, entitled and qualified to call, while they have not yet seen their way clearly to come to the Lord’s Table. On the whole, I am not very averse to such a proposal. There are difficulties. The right of the Church to say who are to be held members must be absolute. The privilege of calling and objecting must be a spiritual privilege, or an ecclesiastical one, enjoyed by men at the discretion of the Church Courts, and subject to their superintendence and control. There must be no civil status independently of the decision of the Church, or im- plying that an individual might claim his privilege against the Church’s will. This of course. But why do I inflict a dissertation on you? I am stupid and idle to-day. I sometimes feel as if I were tired of all these public affairs. They are all vanity, as well as our private hopes and joys. But we must not shrink from duty nor relinquish the per- suasion that there is something stable.” Mr. Candlish did go to Newcastle, and, as one of the deputies from the General Assembly, addressed the English Presbyterian Synod on, the relations between it and the Assembly. On the same day he addressed a meeting on the subject of non-intrusion. On the 22d April, in a letter to Mr. Dunlop, he expresses his apprehension that the Government might, to get rid of the question, agree to a proposal of Lord Aberdeen, which was, in substance, that which became law subsequent to the Dis- MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 119 ruption. From London, on 20th June, he wrote to Mr. Dunlop— “Things here are bad enough. Lord Aberdeen is very angry and very obstinate. Welsh and I had a long talk to-day with Sir George Clerk. No hope of an opening even for the minimum. We saw Breadalbane yesterday. He is very friendly, but can do little. Great use has been made here of our alleged divisions, and every politic turn of our middle men twisted against us. There are, I fear, dangers not a little in the direction of middles and expediency courses. Every conversion is abused. Last night I was in the House of Lords. All the battering of the Strathbogie men by our friends was turned to account artfully against us. It was truly deplorable to see what a sorry figure we cut—nobody to state our case. We will labour hard to find some way of righting ourselves in part, and getting the case rightly put before the public, either in the Commons or in some of the papers, or some way or other. There is a strong feeling that we should apply to be heard by counsel against Lord Aberdeen’s bill, if he goes on with it. If we agree in this, you must come up immediately. Mackellar and Hamilton have arrived.” The minimum referred to in this letter was, that Presby- teries should have power to decide absolutely and finally on a view of the whole circumstances, including the dissent of the people, whether a presentee should be admitted to a charge or rejected. The discussion in the House of Lords was on the occasion of Lord Aberdeen moving the second reading of the Bill he had prepared, and which had already been considered and rejected by the General Assembly, which had recently closed its sittings. On the 23d June Mr. Candlish again wrote to Mr. Dunlop regarding consultations with various parties in London as to petitioning to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House of Lords, and in the event of this step being resolved upon, he tells Mr. Dunlop to hold himself in readiness for a peremptory summons to come up on this business. “All agree that you must be here, and that you, along with an English barrister, ought to manage the case.” Again he wrote to Mr. Dunlop 120 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. on 29th June, “ Our object is chiefly to manifest our opposi- tion, and to get a good statement of our case brought formally before the House and the public. It is not likely that Lord Aberdeen will go on to press his bill. We propose that Breadalbane should present our petition to-morrow, and thereafter put a question to Aberdeen, and if he finds the bill is not to be pressed, then waive our being heard.” Again, on 2d July, he wrote Mr. Dunlop— “Tord Aberdeen got his bill through the Committee to-night, fairly jostling and juggling our friend Breadalbane, who, though abundantly hearty, is not very ready, and is rather overborne in that den. After the discussion, which was very short, Aberdeen told Breadalbane he would say positively on Monday or Tuesday whether he was going on with the bill. I suppose he waits his orders from the Dean (Hope, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates). Meantime we can do nothing till then. The motion to hear us by counsel is postponed till then. Our impression is that they will agree to hear, and will allow time. Τῇ not, so much the better for us. Let them refuse the petition, or refuse time to prepare, and we are in the best position. Again, we are confidently told that he won’t go on to the third reading. Maule says he knows this certainly. At all events he is pledged to tell Breadalbane on Monday. I would fain hope we may get away on Tuesday. Of course if we must appear by counsel, 1.6. if they go on to the third reading and agree to hear us, we must arrange about counsel, and you must come up. I can stay no longer. I am much wanted at home, and am weary of this business. It is of little use working here. Our hope is in Scotland. The Marnoch Petition has come up, signed by 532 in six hours! It will do us some good, I hope. It is to be presented, we expect, in both Houses to-morrow. The spirit of the peers is most horrible. Miller (Witness) is not a bit too severe when he speaks of the boot. I believe they would gladly persecute us, if they dared. “T wish I was home again. Anti-patronage now, open and un- mitigated, must be our object, and we must gain it. Cooke, of Belfast, has arrived to-day to help us for two days. He will get up some kind of stir among the Irish Presbyterian members, which may tell on Peel and Stanley.” On 7th July he wrote to Mr. Dunlop— “The billis abandoned. This we know positively, as far as private MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 121 information can give us security ; and to-night Lord Aberdeen is to be asked a question, and is to give an answer. We are winding up affairs. The Moderator, Welsh, and I leave this to-night, Hamilton to-morrow morning. You need not fear about our being heard by counsel. We have learned some practical lessons here, which will be very useful when we return home. We must organise, and that immediately.” At the Commission of Assembly in August, Mr. Candlish spoke in support of a motion to appoint a committee to pre- pare a libel against the seven suspended ministers of Strath- bogie as follows :— “Tn point of fact, the charge now about to be libelled against the seven suspended ministers has no reference whatever to any act of obedience on their part to the Civil Courts, or any sentence of any civil tribunal. The Procurator’s advice must be substantially followed, be- cause we shall not libel them for any act in which they can plead the authority of the Court of Session. They plead a conscientious convic- tion of their obligation to obey the authority of the Court of Session, as areason for violating the orders of our Assembly and its Commission in regard to taking Mr. Edwards on trials. I would have given them, I confess, more credit for this conviction, had they consistently con- tinued to act in accordance with it, had they felt themselves as strictly and immediately bound to induct Mr. Edwards, if found qualified, as well as to try his qualifications. For the Civil Courts declared them equally bound to do both. Still, however, their proceedings, previous to this Assembly, in regard to taking Mr. Edwards on trials, are not now before this Court. They were disposed of by the Assembly, and it is not necessary to take any account of them. The precise charges now before the House against them are these—that, in violation of the sentence of the Commission, they nevertheless continued in the dis- charge of their spiritual functions; that, after the sentence of the Commission was changed into one of the Assembly, they still continued to discharge these functions ; that they sought the protection of the Civil Court in their discharge, and sought also to overturn the sentence of their ecclesiastical superiors, and to obstruct its execution by a sum- mary proceeding of the Civil Courts. “These are the actings to be libelled. In regard to them they plead the sanction of the Civil Courts ; but are these proceedings in which they can possibly plead any obligation lying on them in refer- ence to the Civil Courts? It has long been a sophism common among our friends opposite, not to distinguish between what the law ordained 122 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. and what it only permitted men to do. I have heard Dr. Cook himself, — with reference to probationers who went to the Civil Courts in defence of their privileges, say that they obeyed the law, as if they did what the law required. But is a Christian man entitled, in the face of his ecclesiastical superiors, to take advantage of all his legal rights to the utmost, and plead obligation to do so? These probationers may plead that they did what the law permitted them to do; but they cannot come here and say that they were acting under the compulsion of the law. They do what the law permits. And so also in this case, here is a charge, in regard to which the most they can plead is, that in their minds the Civil Courts sanction their procedure. Under what sort of legal obligation do they lie to prosecute their spiritual functions in opposition to a sentence of suspension or deposition, and then go to the secular courts to have themselves reponed? Unless it be held that it is the bounden duty of a man to avail himself to the utmost of his legal rights, it cannot be said that these men were under any obligation here. Even did such obligation le upon them, it would not relieve them from our censures ; but this is a different case. They must be libelled for offences which the Civil Courts were in no way binding or asking them to commit. “ And here I have another remark to make regarding the precise nature of the offence charged against them. Much has been said to- day about their contumacy in disobeying their ecclesiastical superiors, and the impression may be made, in some quarters, that our substantial charge against these men is contumacy. Now, I do acknowledge that I would look with jealousy on the Church proceeding to extreme censures on grounds involving only contumacy to her own Courts ; at least, I would regret much if the case were of such a nature as to bear this form alone. I should always like that these sentences against ministers of the gospel should involve not only the dignity and personal credit of their ecclesiastical superiors, but matters higher and more serious. I admit to the full the necessity of maintaining our jurisdic- tion; but in this case it happens that the charges which we bring are not charges that merely involve contumacy to us or to the Assembly. This is not, to my mind, even the gravamen of the charge. They might have been visited with summary deposition for not com- pearing according to citation ; but I rejoice that we are now allowed to lay out the accusation in the formal shape of a libel, and thus to bring before the Church and the country the full weight and import of their offence. And this is their offence :—They are dispensing ordinances without a warrant, usurping the power of the keys, when MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 12. no power competent to give these keys put them into their hand— doing what I hold to be a desecration of the ordinances of Christ and of the sacraments which He has instituted and ordained to be dispensed by the hands of the ministers of His Word, duly called thereto, and which these men, who for the time are no ministers at all, have dared to touch. This is the main charge ; and another charge is, that these men, under no obligation to do so—not coerced—hbut in their ambition to retain that office of which their ecclesiastical superiors had deprived them, as they alone bestowed it—are guilty of going to another court, not a court of Christ at all, but a court of Cesar, and of asking from Czxsar the power of the keys which the Church alone possesses. These are charges which go far beyond the mere charge of contumacy— charges of a far greater and more heinous character—charges which affect immediately the high honour of the Redeemer, and the sacred- ness of the ordinances of His institution. For, as we believe that Christ has appointed a government in His Church upon earth, and has committed to that government the ministerial office, we do not hold it competent for men who have not received that office, or who have been deprived of it, to go on in discharging its functions. Let no man say then that these proceedings are founded on the mere charge of con- tumacy, as if we were going on to extremities against these erring brethren because they set aside our authority in any technical or formal matter,—such as disobeying our orders in refusing to appear at our citation. And it is on this account I rejoice that we are not to proceed by a summary act of deposition for contumacy against them, but are called upon to libel them in the face of the country for our own vindication, and in the hope that, by the blessing of God, it may even yet lead to beget within them a conviction of their error.” At a meeting of the Presbytery of Edinburgh at the end of October Mr. Candlish gave his first public utterances on part of a subject which in after years engaged very much of his time and mind, and in connection with which he rendered most important service to his Church and country. It is for this reason I give his short speech in the Presbytery on the subject of school inspection by Government. “Mr. Candlish brought forward his motion, of which he gave notice last month, that the Presbytery should invite Mr. Gibson, the Government Inspector of Schools for Scotland, to inspect the schools within the bounds of the Presbytery when requested by individual 124 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. ministers, or by the Committee lately appointed for superintending education within their bounds. It did not appear to him that, in doing so, they would be committing themselves to any approbation of the system in accordance with which he had been appointed inspector. He viewed the matter in this light: they had an inspector appointed by Government—an individual in whom the Church reposed the fullest confidence, and who was, in the estimation of all who were acquainted with him, admirably qualified for the discharge of the duty. Were they not, then, to be at liberty to avail themselves of the services of this individual, and to ask him to devote a portion of his time and his talents to the work in connection with their schools? In doing so they did not ask for the services of the Government Inspector, strictly so called. They did not propose a general resolution, binding them- selves in all cases, to approve of the Government Inspector ; but they took the special case of an individual being appointed who was approved by the Church, and he did say, that when Government appointed a man in whom they had confidence, they ought thankfully to avail themselves of his help. To that extent, then, he proposed to ask for the assistance of Mr. Gibson ; and when they had the power to secure the services of such a man, it would require a strong reason indeed to satisfy him that it was not their duty, out of regard to the schools under their superintendence, to take advantage of his services. He asked the Presbytery to agree to this proposition, not by any means with a view to supersede the labours of the Committees, nor to slacken the diligence of these Committees, or of any individual member of Presbytery : he rejoiced heartily that the Presbytery was discharging its duty by a vigorous and systematic exertion to promote the work of education ; but he had the fullest conviction that the co-operation of Mr. Gibson would have the effect of quickening the zeal and diligence of the Presbytery tenfold. He admired as much as any man the system established in Scotland by which the schools were placed under the superintendence of the ministers and Presbyteries of the Church ; he should dread as much as any one the scheme by which it was pro- posed to withdraw the schools of the country from that superintendence, and to separate religious from secular education ; but it could not be denied, and it was not to be disguised, that, however high the Church of Scotland rated the importance of education—and she stood pre- eminent among the Churches of the Reformation in a sound regard to the proper training and up-bringing of youth—-still the education of her youth was not in a state of such high efficiency, but that means might be used to stimulate them to greater exertions, and to obtain MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 125 greater success. It was not to be forgotten that the high aim of the Church of Scotland had at all times been, not only the diffusion of elementary instruction, but education in all its branches, secular and religious, up to the highest pitch to which the diligence of the teachers and the capacity of the pupils, under the blessing of God, could raise it. It was the glory of the Church that she had never shown herself sensitive or jealous on the diffusion of education—that, instead of deal- ing out knowledge with a sparing or fearful hand, as if the increase of knowledge would lead to the increase of crime, she had ever diffused among her people the highest style of education. He trusted that they would not degenerate from their fathers in this respect ; and to that end he was desirous that they, as a Presbytery, should avail themselves of the means now within their reach, and that other Presbyteries should do the same, not for the purpose of relieving them- selves from their obligations, but that they might better and more faithfully discharge their obligations ; for sure he was, that, with the co-operation of Mr. Gibson, their interest in the schools under their superintendence would be increased tenfold, and their skill and ability in discharge of their duty would be increased an hundredfold. He had only to add that he, of course, did not mean by his motion to make it imperative on every member of Presbytery to invite Mr. Gibson contrary to his own conscience ;—all he wanted was, that the Presbytery should authorise those members of Presbytery to do so who had no such scruples.” He concluded by a motion in the line he had indicated. During the summer of this year Dr. M‘Gill, Professor of Divinity in Glasgow, died, and Mr. Candlish, as appears from his correspondence with Mr. Dunlop, concerned himself much in securing a suitable successor. In a letter dated 27th August he says—“It is pretty well agreed that Buchanan (James) should be the man for the Glasgow Chair, and I believe he would agree to leave the High Church if required by our friends, to allow himself to be proposed. This is clearly the best arrangement. He is far better qualified than any one else, and will have some important advantages in a contest. I wish you would interest the Government people, especially the Advocate and Solicitor.” In another letter, 126 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. dated 9th September, he says—“ What think you of Chalmers for the Glasgow Chair? They are to propose him. No other man on our side has the least chance. He is willing to come.” The appointment fell to neither. The time, in fact, had passed when any non-intrusionist could expect promotion. In view of the impending struggle for the liberties of the Church a document was prepared and largely subscribed, entitled “Engagement in defence of the liberties of the Church and people of Scotland ;” and at a meeting held in St. Luke’s Church, Edinburgh, early in November, Mr. Candlish spoke in explanation of the principles stated in the Engage- ment, and in advocacy of such a bond or covenant in existing circumstances. At the meeting of the Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale he moved the transmission of an overture for the Abolition of Patronage as contrary to the Word of God and the Constitution of the Church. This was the position which the advocates of the liberties of the Church were, in increasing numbers, led to occupy ; and at a public meeting in Edinburgh in December Mr. Candlish proposed a petition to Parliament for the Abolition of Patronage. CHAPTER VI. Commencement of Missionary Record—Testimony of Mr. H. Miller—Duke of Argyll’s Bill—Irish Presbyterian Church—Letter to Mr. Dunlop— Visit to London—Escape from Fire—Letter to his son James—Proposed gift— Assembly 1841—Spoke on Mission to Jews— Examination of Students—Case of Mr. Wright—Abolition of Patronage—Duke of Argyll’s Bill— Case of Daviot—Church Extension — Serving an Interdict on Assembly—Meeting in favour of Duke of Argyll’s Bill—Visit to Ire- land—Commission of Assembly—Sympathisers with seven Strathbogie Ministers — Speech at great meeting in West Church, Edinburgh — Speech at Glasgow on co-ordinate jurisdiction. It was not to be expected that a man so indefatigably active as Mr. Candlish was, and taking such a prominent part in ecclesiastical affairs at a time when questions were in agita- tion in which parties on both sides took so keen an interest, should escape the shafts of malice. It is true, indeed, that, except in so far as the advocacy of what he believed to be truth was concerned, no man ever did less to provoke recri- mination. In the hottest conflict, and in the most impassioned pleading, Mr. Candlish never became personal—never uttered a word which he needed to retract, or for which an apology was required. His conflict was not with individual oppo- nents, but for truth which he felt to be deeply important, both as concerned the wellbeing of the Church and the honour of her Head, and this saved him from all personal bitterness. He was not covetous of personal distinction, nor did his inde- fatigable labours contemplate any earthly reward. His mani- fold labours were eminently and conspicuously unselfish, and 128 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. prompted by a burning desire to promote the glory of God and the good of His Church. But all this could not save him from detraction, and from accusations from various quarters and of various kinds. He did not concern himself alone with the controversy in which the Church was engaged with the Civil Courts, although the part he took in that, in addition to his pastoral labours, was sufficient to occupy the time and exhaust the energies of most men. He took a very lively interest in the propagation of the gospel, and in the missionary enterprises in which the Church was engaged. It was largely due to his agency that a deputation was sent in 1839 to visit the East with the view of organising a Mission to the Jews; and his interest in mis- sions was so recognised that the conducting of a Missionary Record, then newly started, was committed to his hands. It seemed incredible to those who did not know him that such work could be undertaken and done without fee or reward, and accordingly it was asserted that he received a salary of £100 for doing it. Even had this been true there would have been nothing discreditable in it. But it was a pure invention, designed to injure him. Of course he was denounced as an incendiary, in news- papers, in pamphlets, and in public speeches; and even in the House of Lords he was characterised by Lord Aberdeen as a law-breaker, when speaking in reference to his proposed appointment to the Chair of Biblical Criticism. Not content with depreciating Mr. Candlish’s fitness for such an office, his Lordship affirmed of Principal Lee that he was the only suit- able man for the Chair. But if Mr. Candlish had his detractors he had also power- ful defenders; and I think it not inappropriate here to quote what Mr. Hugh Miller said of him in the Witness in reference to this very matter :— “ What in reality are the respective merits of the two gentlemen MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 129 thus weighed against each other by his Lordship? The people of Edinburgh are perhaps better qualified to decide the point than the members of the Upper House. It is now too late for even the bitterest enemies of Mr. Candlish to dispute the fact that, for at once versatility and profundity of talent—for that minute acquaintance with the know- ledge and opinions of others, in which true learning consists—and that ability of forming new combinations of ideas, which constitutes origin- ality of thought—he stands pre-eminent—second at least to no man in Scotland. Good writing has been defined by Addison as consisting of thoughts, natural and obvious; and such is peculiarly the style of thinking characteristic of the mind of Mr. Candlish. Such is the ver- satility of his faculties that he never wearies attention ; and he ever seems suited to do that best which he chances to be doing at the time. Is the subject a metaphysical one? The hearer is struck by the nicely discriminating and subtle character of his intellect, his skill in clearing entanglements and perplexities of long standing, his singular ability of letting new light into every darker recess of the question, through vistas unopened before. Is the principle discussed one of practical breadth ? There is a corresponding breadth in the discussion. Have the ratio- cinative faculties been kept on the strain till they required an interval of repose? There is a green spot prepared, an arbour on the Hill Difficulty, and the period of severe thought is succeeded by the sun- shiny play of a lively fancy. We question whether in Britain, or in the world, an individual could be found better qualified for a Chair of Biblical Criticism than the minister of St. George’s. The researches of our own times in connection with the peculiar manners and customs of Eastern nations, have thrown a flood of light on many of the hitherto imperfectly understood figures and allusions of Scripture. Mr. Candlish, one of the few scholars who keep fully abreast of the march of know- ledge, is qualified to avail himself of them all. No one familiar with his discourses can doubt his intimate acquaintance with the theologians of other days. Still less can the force and originality of his own views be questioned ; and if such be so unequivocally the character of his mind and the extent of his acquirements, as shown by his compositions as a city minister—of all offices the most incessant in its demands on the time and attention—what might not be expected from him in an academic retirement, with full leisure to pursue, in their inmost recesses, those studies to which nature has so powerfully inclined him ?” I have quoted these sentences not only for the purpose of showing in what estimation Mr. Candlish was held by such a K 130 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. competent judge as Mr. Miller, but also to indicate that, amid his multifarious employments, he was far from being neglect- ful of his duties as a minister. He had come to be recognised as a preacher second to none in the Church of Scotland, with the exception, perhaps, of Dr. Chalmers; and this eminence he won for himself amid distractions which would have disabled most men from excelling in pulpit services. On the 15th April 1841 he wrote to Mr. Dunlop, then in London watching the progress and aiding in framing a pro- posed bill to be introduced into the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll. It would appear that at this time, as well as after- wards, he was doubtful of the thorough and steadfast support of the leaders of the Irish Presbyterian Church. He says— “Our Irish friends must be watched, and made to give us more than blarney. The declaration which Cooke extorted from the Con- servatives, and with which they seem to be mightily pleased, will never do. It is a mere hum; for it may mean anything, as it means nothing. If Cooke and the rest are going to interfere with elections on our behalf, it must be unequivocally, and so as to leave no room for evasion. Else they had better let it alone. Why not put three categorical ques- tions—1. Will you support a bill for abolishing Patronage? 2. Will you resist any bill of coercion, or any measure to which the General Assembly say they cannot submit? 3. Will you support a bill for securing non-intrusion, and excluding the Civil Courts? If he answer the first, and refuse the other two, he won’t do. If he accept the latter two, declining the first, he may, in certain circumstances, pass. What think you of this? The Irishmen should be written to about it. Write you ; and, if you like, so will I. “In regard to your question, I don’t think the Assembly ought now to petition for anything short of anti-Patronage. All the length we can well go, in regard to a measure such as Argyll’s, is to pass a sort of declaratory resolution, stating in detail what it would effect. Suppose a measure of that kind introduced into Parliament, and our opinion in the Assembly asked or expected, we should, I think, try to get a preamble carried to the effect that we consider patronage in itself a grievance which ought to be abolished. Then we might go on to rehearse briefly the origin of the struggle between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts, and to show that the passing of such a measure MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 131 would remove the existing bone of contention, and enable them to har- monise their decisions, carefully limiting our opinion, so as not to im- ply that the measure would satisfactorily settle the general question as to the appointment of ministers, or would ever settle that question at all, but merely that it would bring the law into a state in which another Auchterarder case would not occur. “J think I see how a resolution might be framed, not expressing an opinion on the merits of the bill, but simply stating the fact as to the way in which it would work in reference to the courts of law, and leaving statesmen to judge and act for themselves. This seems to me now the dignified and safe course for the Church in regard to any pro- posed plan which does not fully meet her own views. So far she may be called to go—to declare, if required, what would be the consequence, so far as she is concerned, of such a plan being adopted—how she might act under it. And this can be done in a merely narrative reso- lution, stating. facts. Beyond that she should not go, except for a measure of which we can really approve. And even in any resolution of the former kind we should try to embody in the preamble an ex- pression of our mind as to the right settlement of the whole question of election of ministers. “T have not seen Monteith yet. I have seen a letter of Hamilton’s (John) to Charles Brown. I fear he is urging our friends a little too much, and I doubt if it is quite safe or right to be getting letters from sundry individuals apart from one another, in which the writers may express themselves incautiously, in a way of which our enemies may take advantage. Suggest this to Hamilton. He is not aware of the danger and even unfairness of such a course. A man getting his letter, and full of the views he presses, writes offhand and by himself an answer, in which he may unwarily commit himself and us. In so delicate a matter we should deal only with those who can consult to- gether. I fear also that Hamilton exaggerates both the probability and the advantage of carrying a minitmwm measure, and overlooks the danger on the other side, if the measure fail, and we are too far involved in it. I deprecate also and above all his getting opinions as to the conservative working, and the anti-democratic tendency of a non-intrusion measure. It is all very well as he means it. But his Tory friends will make a party use of it, Our enemies will get hold of it, and turn it against us. We are accused and suspected of politics, and Toryism, and clerical power, and, if this is believed, our hold over the people is gone. “Tt is a curious tendency of the London atmosphere to dull one’s senses to the consideration of the popular element in our cause, and to 132 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. awaken a morbid sensibility as to aristocrats, and minimums, and liberum arbitriums. For myself, I expect no good from the attempt to legislate. I despair of actual legislation at present, and I think Hamilton should remember the long struggle that may await us while the case works itself clear in the Civil Courts ; and we are gone if the people fancy us insincere. I am truly glad you are now in London. Do not, I implore you, come away in a hurry. I would like you to be in London when Iam there. If you say you are to remain till then, I will come to your hotel to be with you. Write to that effect. Tell Hamilton I mean to answer his letter. “The Assembly can’t get a place to meet in. Suppose we erect a pavilion on the Calton Hill.” Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Dunlop got the proposed Non- intrusion Bill adjusted for the Duke of Argyll during the course of April. Mr. Hamilton, corresponding with friends in Edinburgh, expressed great dread lest the bill should be defeated by any movement for the abolition of patronage. Early in May Mr. Candlish was in London, not, so far as I am aware, in connection with the bill, but under an engage- ment to preach in Regent Square Church, which was then destitute of a pastor. While there, and pending the Sabbath on which he was to preach, the hotel in which he was staying took fire. Providentially this occurred in the evening, and not when the inmates were asleep, else the result would prob- ably have been fatal. As it was, Mr. Candlish was glad to escape with his life, and everything he had with him, includ- ing sermons, was consumed. The event was disastrous enough, but it did not prevent his preaching unwritten ser- mons, one of which was taken down in shorthand, unknown .to him, and printed dufing the same week in a serial ‘consist- ing of sermons gleaned in this way. He was wont to say that he found it more useful than any sermon he had ever preached with so little expenditure of labour, for he found it so correct in form and substance that, in after years, he fre- quently preached it from the printed copy in various places. On this occasion he wrote a letter to his son James, then MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 190 in his sixth year, in printed characters, of which the following is a copy -— “ Lonpon, May 11th. “My pear Boy—Is your face quite well? Papa was very sorry to hear that you was not well. I hope you will be able to read this letter yourself. Papa’s house was burned here. But papa was not hurt. Who kept papa from being burned? It was God. Is not God very good? If you love Him, He will bless you, and make you good and happy. Papa is very tired of London, and he is coming home to see you, and mamma, and gran, and aunt, and Toity, and baby, and Tom, and all the rest. Do you like the new house ?—I am, my dear boy, your loving papa, Ropert 8. CANDLISH. “ What is the difference between aunt and ant ?” Very naturally some friends in the congregation thought it behoved them to make good the loss he had sustained in London, and on his return he found they had provided a gift, which he declined in the following terms :— “JT am very deeply affected by the communication made to me this morning, and most sincerely do I feel humbled as well as gratified in receiving it. In other circumstances I might have considered my- self at liberty to accept, in the same spirit of Christian confidence in which it was offered, your munificent gift. But at present, situated as I am, I have great and indeed insuperable difficulty in doing so. I need not enter into particulars. You will easily understand that there are reasons, both personal to myself, and also having reference to the interests of our Church, in whose affairs I have been led to take a part, which require that I should carefully avoid what might be misunder- stood or misrepresented, and you will do me the justice to believe that nothing but a sense of duty would lead me to inflict upon you the pain of this declinature. Be assured that this token of your attach- ment will encourage and stimulate me as your pastor, at least as much as if I had been able to accept your gift. I may add that I heard nothing of what was proposed till yesterday after forenoon service, when I was told of the report mentioned in the newspapers. I had resolved, before receiving your note this morning, to make inquiries, with a view, if possible, to prevent any such plan going forward. I mention this that you may know exactly how I am situated, and how deliberately I had made up my mind. 134 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. “TJ earnestly hope that you will not take it amiss that I should thus decline your very liberal present. I repeat that I must ever re- gard your kind and considerate attention on this occasion as a valuable pledge of your esteem, and a motive to redoubled diligence and zeal in the discharge of my pastoral, duties. I am deeply sensible of my shortcomings and sins in this in time past, and I earnestly solicit your indulgence and your prayers.—Believe me, with every Christian wish for your welfare and prosperity, your faithful servant and pastor, “ Ros. S. CANDLISH.” He returned from London at least in time for the meeting of the General Assembly, of which he was this year a mem- ber, and in the proceedings of which he took a very active and prominent part. The Assembly met on the 20th May, and on the day following Mr. Candlish gave in the Report of the Committee for promoting Christianity among the Jews, concluding with the statement, “ The Committee, at every step, are more deeply impressed with the persuasion that the whole origin and progress of their proceedings has indeed been of Him whose memorial throughout all generations is, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob ;’ and their grati- tude for the past is mingled with lively hope for the future, since the remembrance of Zion by His people is closely con- nected with the Lord Himself arising to have mercy on her.” On Saturday the 22d Mr. Candlish proposed the appoint- ment of a Committee to report to the next Assembly on the subject of the examination of students, and observed that it was interesting to remark that at the very time when the popular will in the election of ministers was so strongly con- tended for, measures were being taken to raise the standard of qualifications in entrants to the holy ministry. On Monday the 24th Mr. Candlish spoke at length in support of a motion for the deposition of Mr. Wright, minister at Borthwick, for heresy, entering into a careful analysis of errors in Mr, Wright’s published writings. On Tuesday the 25th Mr. Candlish spoke at the close of MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 135 a lengthened debate on a motion by Mr. Cunningham for the abolition of Patronage, “as necessary in order to put the whole matter of the appointment of ministers on a right and permanent basis.” There were two parties opposed to the motion, the whole Moderate party, and besides a party of creat weight and influence who were content if non-intrusion could be secured, and who dreaded the anti-Patronage move- ment as likely to be fatal to the success of the bill introduced into the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll on the 6th May. Mr. Candlish replied to the speeches of both parties, objecting to the non-intrusion motion as launching the Church on the ocean of expediency :— “Tts terms,” he said, “were merely prospective; it anticipates contingencies, and proposes to regulate the duty of the Church by reference to these contingent evils. We have a simpler and safer direction to follow. We are prepared to take our stand on present duty, without regard to what may be the consequences ; we leave all these matters to the disposal of a higher power ; we walk in the path of duty ; if there is evil in it this is not our doing ; we cannot help it. Recent events have emphatically taught us to put no trust in man. One noble Duke, indeed, on whose patriotism he placed the utmost reli- ance, and whose hereditary reverence for the Church of his fathers he well knew, had come forward with a proposal which might settle present differences. But he stands almost alone. Proofs and tokens have been abundant in time past to teach us that reliance on princes and nobles is vain. It is high time that we should put our trust in the living God, and go forward in His strength alone.” On Wednesday the 26th Mr. Candlish moved a series of four resolutions on the Duke of Argyll’s bill. After a state- ment of the provisions of the bill, and expression of grati- tude to the Duke for having introduced it, he proceeded as follows :— “ Undoubtedly the position of the State, on the highest ground of principle, was this—Simply to endow the ministers of Christ’s Church, and recognise the creed and constitution of the Church, leaving her in everything else free as the winds of heaven. But he was prepared to 136 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. acquiesce in what the Duke of Wellington suggested in the discussion of last year, that the Church should say what course of procedure she would adopt in any given case, and then the State would give to that the sanction of the civil law. This was the course pursued in the pre- sent bill. On these grounds he held that he was not only at liberty, but that he was imperatively bound to express upon the whole his concurrence with this bill, and his desire that such a measure should become part and parcel of the law of the land. He did so, not because the State would thus perform its whole duty on the appointment of ministers, but because it was a vital part of their duty. He took no notice of the concluding section of the bill regarding the jus devolutum, he cared nothing about it; he disliked patronage in every shape, and it mattered not to him in what party it should be lodged.” He then read the following resolutions :-— “The General Assembly having taken into consideration the report of the committee of last General Assembly appointed to watch over the progress of any legislative measure relative to the principle of non-in- trusion and the present position of the Church, approve generally of the same, and of the diligence of the Committee ; and in reference to the com- munication made by the Committee of a bill recently introduced into the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll, the General Assembly resolve (61, That they will continue to maintain inviolate the great and fundamental principle that no minister, etc. ; and that no legislative measure can be regarded as satisfactory to the Church, or as a measure in which the Church can acquiesce, which does not enable her to carry that principle into full practical effect, or which interferes with her exclusive jurisdiction in all spiritual matters. «(ἐς That the measure proposed in the bill of the Duke of Argyll does substantially provide for the maintenance and practical application of this principle of non-intrusion as asserted by this Church, and is substantially in accordance with one of the plans suggested by the Committee of last General Assembly, and sanctioned by that Assembly, that it is therefore a measure which this Church may receive as con- sistent with that fundamental principle, and which, if passed into a law, would be received with thankfulness as an important boon to the Church and to the country ; and that the Church and country are under deep obligation to Itis Grace the Duke of Argyll for this new proof of that enlightened patriotism and zeal which of old have distinguished the illustrious family whose name is honourably enrolled among Scot- land’s martyrs and confessors,’ ” MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 137 He continued— “ Before reading the third resolution, I beg, with all deference, to appeal to my friends on the other side, as also to all within this House, whatever their views may be, who desire to see the peace and prosperity of our Zion ; and if means could be found to separate this resolution from the rest, so as to make it consistent with the principles of the party on the other side of the house to support it, I should not be without hope of the most blessed results. I hail with delight the overtures which were made from that side, in the former debate, to- wards restoring the peace of the Church, and I rejoice in what fell from Mr. Robertson of Ellon, when speaking on another subject (the Colonial Committee), for it seemed to indicate that he at least—and his sagacity is such that I could trust him as a man with something of the second sight—he at least seemed to see that there was some possibility of adopting some mode of extrication from our present difficulties. I give my friend credit in all sincerity for his sincerity, and I rejoice in his remarks. I would then beseech my friends on the other side of the house—setting aside all irritating feelings, putting aside for the present the painfully afflicting case in which we shall be engaged to-morrow, and confining themselves entirely to the point of non-intrusion—I would calmly put it to the house to consider the difference, in respect to prin- ciple, between our side and many at least on theirs. They, I believe, will give us full credit for conscientiousness of opinion ; and the same credit I give to them. Frankly, I concede to them that as we cannot concur in the soundness of their views so they cannot concur in the soundness of ours, and that they cannot share in the responsibility of having our views carried practically into effect. I admit frankly that our friends are conscientiously disabled from undertaking the responsi- bility of passing the measures which we propose. But there is a point of difference between us. We have taken up our position, whether right or wrong—we never will abandon the principle of non-intrusion in our sense of the term, we never can abandon the principle that re- claiming congregations shall in all cases be saved from the intrusion of unacceptable ministers. Now, just for once, let me put it to my friends to dismiss from their minds the irritating topic of our having taken up a position as rebels. We say that we are not in that position ; and our friends, I am sure, will do us the justice to admit that we are able to urge a plausible defence against the allegation. Be that as it may, if we are rebels in their judgment we are not rebels in intention ; we have plausible reasons, to say the least, to show that we are not rebels 138 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. at all; and anxious as we are conscientiously to escape from such a position, be the difficulties what they may, we cannot do otherwise than we are doing. I entreat my friends to lay aside those irritating topics. They seem to think that we on this side of the house have a sort of liking for the position in which we stand. I entreat them to believe that they are grievously mistaken. We have no wish to covet the honoured glory of martyrdom ; and however willing we may be to endure the reproaches that have been heaped upon our heads, let not our friends suppose that this is a position in which we exult and rejoice as if it were a delightful position, and that we delighted in it the more, the more we were abused. No; but the difficulty of our position con- sists in this, that we can neither get relief by going out of the Church, as is proposed by some, nor can we get relief by submitting to the law, as is proposed by others. These two remedies have been proposed ; I say not in what spirit. They have been proposed by the enemies of our Church from without; and, I deeply regret to say, are often pro- posed by our friends and brethren from within. If the matter were, indeed, personal to myself, I should be grateful and glad for the relief, if I could escape from the difficulties which surround us by either of these two ways. If I were to leave the Church of my fathers and worship God elsewhere ; if I were to relinquish my position in the Established Church, I know that I could serve the Lord Jesus else- where, and preach the gospel of His grace on any part of the earth. If, again, I were to bring myself to submit to the law, I, even I, rebel as I am, and taunted as such in the high places, is it to be supposed that I am insensible to the evils that I suffer, evils affecting my character and my peace, which no man can endure with calmness and patience ; set up as a mark for the press and for peers to aim at, even 1 might and could submit to it. “ But again, I entreat the House to consider our position. I admit our friends on the other side can have no hand in the responsibilty of passing this measure ; but I put it to many of them whether it is not a measure which, if passed into a law, they might acquiesce in, they might submit to, they might act under, in concert, and in harmony with us. When the Veto Act was passed, my brethren did not approve of it; they resisted it, and they afterwards sought its repeal. I admit that in all this they acted right, according to their views of duty. But when it was passed they had no difficulty in acting under it, they had no scruples of conscience in ordering the settlement of ministers according to that law. I ask them, if this were again to become the law of the land, if they will not assist, at least that they will submit to its passing? MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 139 They might agitate for the repeal of the veto; they might seek to con- vince the Church that she had done wrong ; but suppose the Church to obtain the permission of the Legislature to act in that way in which she holds it to be her duty to act, I say, would it be inconsistent in them to acquiesce in this settlement of the affairs of our beloved Church? If means could be found to obtain this expression of opinion from our friends opposite, that while they wash their hands of all responsibility in the matter, while they do not think the Church is right to ask it, while they hold to their own objections, yet that, if it is passed into a law, it will not offend their consciences to act under it ; by such a statement as this they would prove themselves the most generous, the most disinterested, the most seasonable benefactors the Church ever saw. The time has now come when our friends may be expected to make such a statement. As long as this matter was not involved in its present state—while matters stood as they did a year or two ago—I admit they might stand aloof and say nothing ; but now, in the critical position in which the Church is placed, a position so critical that none on our side of the House, however desirous of seeing anti- Patronage carried to-morrow would refuse to take non-intrusion to-day in such a position our friends are imperatively called upon, for the sake of Zion’s peace, to say whether, if this bill were passed into a law, both parties might not act,in concert under it. “T rejoice that I have been the humble instrument, under God, of bringing the House to its present state of mind, which, I say it with all humility, is better than I ever saw it before ; and I shall rejoice if the feeling which now pervades the House shall give the key to the whole discussion ; and if so, under the blessing of God, we know not what may be the result. I say this in no spirit of argument or controversy. I am speaking under a weight of responsibility deeper than I ever felt before ; I am speaking under an apprehension of the impending cala- mities with which our beloved Church is threatened.” He then read the third resolution, as follows :— “¢3. That the present difficulties of this Church 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 the Ecclesi- astical Courts, in reference to the settlement of ministers, ought to unite in its support all who feel that they could conscientiously submit to its operation if passed into a law. “4, That a Committee be appointed to watch over the progress of the bill of the Duke of Argyll, or of any other bill which may be 140 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. introduced relative to the subject. And that, while the attention of the Committee is especially directed to the clause in the 2d section of the bill, which seems, apparently from oversight, and inconsistently with the main enactment of the bill, to make it imperative on the Presbytery to inquire whether the communicants, dissenting from the settlement of a presentee, are actuated by factious or malicious motives, although no allegation to that effect nor offer of proof is made by the patron or presentee, the General Assembly direct the Committee to give encouragement and aid, so far as in their power, to the passing of the said bill; and generally, to use all proper efforts for obtaining the settlement of the great question now at issue, on a footing con- sistent with the principles repeatedly declared and asserted by this Church.” The appeal which Mr. Candlish made to the Assembly was listened to with breathless silence, and evidently im- pressed and solemnised his opponents. As events proved, however, the effect was only transient, although at the time it seemed as if they had yielded to its power. On Thursday, 27th May, on the motion of Dr. Chalmers, sentence of deposition was pronounced on the seven Strath- bogie ministers. , On Friday, the 28th, Mr. Candlish spoke on the case of Daviot in support of a motion for rejecting the presentee to that parish on the ground of the veto law. The interest of the discussion lay in the fact that the number of those entitled to exercise the veto, namely the male heads of families being communicants, was so small in comparison with the population, and that the state of things had been attributed by Lord Aberdeen in the House of Lords, and by the Quarterly Review, to the prevalence of non-intrusion principles, and the action of the Church in reducing the number of communicants that they might be more easily managed. Mr. Candlish said—*I heard the statement alluded to made in the House of Lords, with this addition, which seemed to be extraordinary, that not only was this state of things, in such a parish as Daviot, the result of the mancevures MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 141 and proceedings on this side of the House, but that it was a trick on our part to get the power into our own hands—that by diminishing the number of communicants we might the more easily manage them. Is this consistent with the facts —the notorious facts of the case? I can scarcely think any one could attend to the state of things in Scotland, and yet be ignorant of the facts of this case; and I regret that any patriotic nobleman should display such ignorance.” On the following day Mr. Candlish spoke on the subject of Church Extension, strongly advocating the principle that churches should not contain more than 1000 sittings, afford- ing accommodation for a population of 2000, which was abundantly sufficient for the pastoral oversight of one minister. On the same day, while the Assembly were engaged in a discussion on the eldership, it was intimated that a messenger- at-arms was at the door to serve an interdict on the Assembly, which gave rise to a scene of considerable confusion. It was understood that the interdict was in relation to the deposition of the seven Strathbogie ministers. On Monday, the 31st, Mr. Candlish moved a series of resolutions in reference to the interference, which were adopted without discussion. The concluding resolution was as follows :—“That, in circum- stances so peculiar and so critical, the Assembly is solemnly called to protest against the violent intrusion of the secular arm into the ecclesiastical province, and to represent the most alarming state of matters to the rulers and legislators of this great nation, on whom must rest the responsibility of upholding the Established Church in the full possession of all her Scriptural and constitutional privileges; that, with this view, these resolutions ought to be transmitted to her Majesty the Queen in Council, and that the General Assembly resolve accordingly.” On the week on which the Assembly rose a public meeting 142 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. was held in the Assembly Rooms, Edinburgh, in favour of the Duke of Argyll’s Bill, at which Mr. Candlish spoke, and said—“ He could understand how it should be called a sacrifice if, for the sake of obtaining this bill, they were to give up seeking the abolition of Patronage. That, however, was a sacrifice which they could not make, even on the alter- native of obtaining peace. But it was no sacrifice to accept of a measure which secures a principle that they had always supported on its own merits, and which they held to be, on clear ground, a great Scriptural doctrine.” Ata meeting of the Presbytery held on the last day of June it was agreed to translate Mr. James Hamilton, minister of Roxburgh Church, to Regent Square, London, and Mr. Candlish spoke strongly in favour of the translation. In July Mr. Candlish attended the meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland as a deputy from the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and spoke in sup- port of a Mission to the Jews, pleading that if the Irish Church were not yet ripe for establishing a mission of their own they would at least endeavour to furnish the Church of Scotland with a missionary. He availed himself also of the occasion of his presence in Ireland to address a meeting on the prin- ciples contended for in the Church of Scotland. The meeting of the Commission of the General Assembly was held as usual on the second Wednesday of August, when it was reported that certain ministers, Robertson, John Cook, and others, had assisted the deposed ministers of Strathbogie at the dispensation of the Communion; and Mr. Candlish spoke on the subject, and moved a series of resolutions. After a lengthened argument he said— “JT have to propose that the Commission, having this report from the Presbytery of Strathbogie laid before them, shall transmit it to the several Presbyteries having jurisdiction over the individuals therein named, that they may proceed in the matter as they shall be advised. MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 143 I have also to propose that we should at all events discharge our duty by making an attempt—shall I say a last attempt? as a Commission of the General Assembly, to preserve, if possible, the unity and peace of the Church, to avert the sin of schism and the many woeful con- sequences which must result from that sin, for if a separate Communion comes to be formed the sin of schism will be unquestionably committed. We may quarrel with one another as to which is the guilty party, but that there will be schism no man who understands what the unity of the Church is can possibly deny. We are called upon, when we see our brethren committing sin, in the act of doing what implies a rending asunder of our beloved Church—I say, when we see them taking such a fatal step, we are called upon, as Christian men and Christian brethren, to do what in us lies to open their eyes to the nature of the step they are taking, and, if possible, to draw them from the precipice on which we see them standing. We owe it to ourselves, and to our brethren throughout the country, to be seen in the attitude of men who are taking a deep and solemn view of the dealings of God with His Church, and of the difficulties in which He has seen it right to involve her ; to be seen by the eyes of all Christian men, and of all Christian churches, in the attitude of exhausting every effort to main- tain the peace of the Church, and prevent her utter disunion and overthrow. And whatever may be the issue, however vain the attempt may be to enlighten our brethren, we shall at all events have delivered our consciences, and shown that we were not wanting in our duty either to the great Head of the Church, or to our brethren who seem to us to be offending. Our duty to the great Head of the Church constrains us to take up their offence in a very solemn manner. By holding communion with men who have been found guilty of disowning the Lord Jesus Christ as the sole King and Head of His Church, and of persevering in the exercise of their ecclesiastical functions without authority from the Church—who have been guilty of the grave and heinous offence of practically denying the headship of Christ by admit- ting another king, even Cesar, into His Church, and receiving spiritual powers from him—TI say that our brethren, by joining in communion with these men, by recognising them as still ministers of the Church of Christ, have placed themselves in the same position, and must be dealt with in the same way.” Mr. Candlish concluded by proposing two resolutions, one of which was—‘“in the spirit of brotherly confidence and affection, in the name of their common Lord and King, and in 144 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. humble reliance on the blessing of that great God and our Saviour, who alone can crown their efforts with success, and turn away wrath and restore peace, to address to the said brethren a solemn remonstrance and warning, setting forth the true nature of the offence involved in the conduct complained of, and its disastrous effects, as aiming a fatal blow at the unity of the Church and threatening to rend her asunder.” At the end of August one of the greatest meetings in connection with the Church’s conflict was held in the West Church, Edinburgh. It was attended by 1200 office-bearers of the Church, and 2000 people besides, as many as the large building could contain, while the windows and doors were besieged by crowds who could not obtain admission. It was a meeting, the solemnity and impressiveness of which can never be forgotten by those who were present at it. It was an occasion for calling forth all the energies of Mr. Candlish, and I give his speech entire, as it was reported at the time. After various speakers had addressed the meeting— “ Mr. Candlish rose, and was received with loud and enthusiastic applause, which lasted for some minutes. He spoke as follows :—In the spirit of deep solemnity which was impressed on my mind by the opening speech of this evening, I consider myself as addressing my fathers and brethren in the body of the house rather than the audience present, yet not omitting that sympathy with the Christian people which always becomes a meeting of the office-bearers of Christ’s Church. In this spirit I desire to address myself as shortlv as may be to what seems to me the main point of the present meeting,—the exact question which the minority of the Church has now raised, and the possible issue of that question. “The question they have raised is in plain terms this, whether we are to maintain the principle for which the Church is now contending, which we hold to be essential to the purity which the Lord Jesus Christ has established in His Church, and to the liberties of His people,—the question is, whether we are to continue the Established Church of this country or no? And it falls to me to contemplate as a possible issue of this question that we shall ultimately, sooner or later, be disestablished. On this they have raised a question that we, MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 145 from a regard to the interests of this Church, and the welfare of this country, never would have ventured to raise; but where we would have trode, and always have been treading with anxious caution, our opponents have rashly rushed to the issue, and the responsibility be on their heads. In all our movements and proceedings, and I say it in the face of the country, we have studiously and anxiously sought to keep the question as far as possible away from anything that could raise such an issue as this.. It is a fearful responsibility which these men take on themselves, especially in days like the present, which are witnessing the breaking up of old institutions—it is a fearful responsi- bility from which we should have thought that men, Christian men, must have shrunk with alarm and dismay. It is a fearful responsibility, in the present state of this country, to raise a question so grave in itself, so awfully momentous in its issue. But they have raised it. In all our proceedings judicially we have most anxiously sought to avoid the raising of this most awful question ; for I must take leave to say, although somewhat painful to introduce even the appearance of an opposition, that in the present circumstances of the country, and the present position of the Church, I do not sympathise in the closing sentiment which my friend Mr. Crichton uttered. I must say that, in the present circumstances of the Church and country, I would view the secession of the Moderate men, however much I detest their prin- ciples, 1 would view their secession as deeply, most deeply, to be deplored ; and I will take the liberty of further stating, that, in the present circumstances of the country, I would dread the event as the forerunner of the Church’s overthrow as an Establishment. We may be at issue on the point whether we might not get on better as a Church if all were agreed on our principles. It may be the opinion that we might get on better if the Moderates were not united with us in our Assemblies; but I believe we would not get on better as an Establishment. The advantages of not having them in our Assemblies would be overbalanced by the risk of the overthrow of the Establish- ment. “JT would further venture to add on this point, that much as I dislike the principles of the Moderate party in our Church—much as I think their principles are opposed to the Word of God in many particulars, I am not prepared to say that, if they were holding their principles—but still not acting on them to the overthrowing of the Church’s authority—I am not prepared to say but in course of time happy results might be anticipated from the intercourse we might have with our Moderate brethren—from the influence we might even exert L 146 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. on their minds. But this is not the point; the question has been raised whether we are to continue to be recognised as the Church of Scotland. “ Here I am, in the first place, to contemplate this event, our being thrust out of the Establishment, as an event that is possible to happen. If the appeal is at this moment to be made to the Legislature of the country,—if the Legislature are to be compelled, on a short notice, to pronounce a short judgment on the question, I think it possible, though but barely possible, that a decision might be given against us. Therefore it is right that we should contemplate that issue, namely, our being thrust out of the Establishment, as possible ; and you, sirs, and those who have spoken this day in the Commission, and I take it all those ministers who are present at this large meeting, have now come to peril their position as ministers in the maintenance of the principles which we now uphold. Now, since we are prepared to con- sent that the State should cast us off—if we are prepared to do so, and if the State may at this moment be called on by a large and influential party to do so—let us boldly contemplate the thing as possible at least. IT am not going to repeat what our fathers and brethren heard this forenoon stated by a reverend father in this church. I merely say that his argument was that we might contemplate such an issue without anxiety or great alarm. In that event, as in the event of persecution in the Church of God, if allowed, it must be the purpose of God’s providence to make the event instrumental in quickly extending the preaching of the gospel. The effect of the breaking up of the Estab- lishment might be the effect of the first persecution of the disciples at Jerusalem to scatter them over the earth ; and even if such were the issue—if we who are now met together as brethren—if those who have taken sweet counsel with us in the great things God has done for us— if we must be scattered to the four winds of heaven, we must rejoice in this, that by thus diffusing the good seed uf the Word, the Lord may be preparing a more abundant harvest in the end. But even this may not be the result. It does not follow that if we are separated from our benefices we are also to be separated from our flocks. Many of our flocks might, in such a case, be subject to a winnowing process ; but I venture to predict as the issue that the chaff would be blown away, and that the precious wheat would be left to us. I do not boast on a subject like this—I would not speak boastingly of the hold that ministers of this Church, accustomed to preach the free gospel of the Lord’s grace, have on the affections of her people. But can it be doubted that men in this land, who maintained a faithful testimony MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 147 for the evangelical truth of God, the men who have been raised up in the place of their fathers who have gone, would have a place in the hearts, prayers, and sympathies of those who would remember their visits in many a sick and dying chamber—who would remember their consolations in many an hour of darkness and of sorrow? This is a consolation which may cheer all of us in anticipating the very worst. We might not even be compelled or allowed to scatter ourselves over the world. God might permit us still to dwell among our own people. And we need not distress ourselves greatly, if that event should come, respecting the means of our support ; although there is not, as I hold that there is not, in the Voluntary principle, that which can fully and adequately meet the wants of a great population. But I do still believe in the voluntary liberality of those whose hearts God has opened in time of trouble, and will open still more. And here, sir, I say it is well for ourselves, for the country, for our opponents, that we should be seen in the attitude of men fairly calculating the question. “ Let me add that I can conceive of the Voluntary principle being brought into operation in our Church, if such should be the event, in such a way as has not been tried in this country. Even our friends the Voluntaries, who have so strenuously advocated that principle, have not given it a fair trial. My impression is that our Voluntary friends do not know how to work it, and do not make the best of it. They do not adopt the apostolic rule that all things in this matter should be in common. I cannot doubt that in the earlier Church the system of ministerial support would not have been analogous with that system which leaves ministers to depend on their congregations, but rather analogous to that which the wiser Methodists have adopted, viz. the system which unites the contributions of the faithful, and out of a common fund supplies the wants of the ministers. This, I am fully persuaded, would be the course which this Church, in such an event, would be led to adopt. We would be led by the providence of God to have recourse to some such plan. No other measure would be at all a reasonable or a capable measure. There are some of us so favourably situated in the larger towns of the country, and in possession of youth and vigorous health, and who might find little difficulty in retaining congregations who would devote their means to the maintaining of the minister among them. But would this be reasonable, should that crisis arise which would affect but little those in larger towns? Would it be reasonable to our fathers, who have spent their days in lonely valleys of our land, to our brethren who have borne the heat and burden of the day, and that in districts where, willing as the people 148 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. might be to support their beloved pastors, they are straitened from the want of means—would such a course be reasonable? There can be no doubt, I should think, that if God gave the ministers of this Church grace to be so faithful to our principles as to consent to the loss of their benefices rather than surrender this principle for which she is contending—I cannot doubt, I say, that He will give us the further wisdom to provide in some such way as this that the ministry through- out the land should share in common from the free-will offerings of the whole people. “T am aware that I may be told that it is not wise and prudent to be thus anticipating an event which may not arise, or to show that we are so well prepared for it, and so willing to meet it when it does arise. They may tell us that by pointing out to the country and the Legislature how we would do, we are encouraging our Moderate friends to persevere, and encouraging the Legislature to say, ‘ Well, then, since you can get on so well out of the Establishment, you had better go. Sir, I am persuaded that the attitude of calm and deliberate foresight, instead of encouraging, will rather cause our opponents, I do not say to tremble, but to pause ; for my belief is that our opponents, both within the Church and without—but I speak rather in reference to our oppo- nents within—may from conviction cease to persevere. Our humble hope is that even they have no wish, and have no intention, to drive things so fast to extremities. They rely on our weakness, our want of counsel, our want of union ; they think we shall be driven down man by man, and Presbytery by Presbytery. They do not reckon on the firm front we are ready to present, and what calmly and deliberately, in the strength of God, we are ready to perform. “Then, again, sir, can any one believe that the statesmen of our day are not open to some consideration ? Is it possible to imagine that any statesman, of whatsoever party, who is not prepared for the total overthrow of our institutions, would calmly and deliberately contem- plate a Church in the attitude of preparing to sacrifice all rather than sacrifice principle, and preparing to do so in a way which shows not hasty counsel, but that of mén who have consulted together in the fear of the Lord, and who put their trust in the faithfulness of their God? I have very little fear that unless God in His displeasure, on account of the sins of the Church and of the nation—unless God visits our rulers with the spirit of infatuation in consequence of the sins of the land—I cannot believe that any rulers would calinly contemplate the Church of Scotland—the ancient and venerable Church of Scotland—collect- ing her resources and calmly making up her mind—her ministers, man MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 149 to man, shoulder to shoulder, share and share alike, consenting that they should be thrust out of the Church rather than sacrifice their principles. “ We owe it to one another thus to strengthen one another’s hands and encourage one another’s hearts. We who live in this large metro- polis, who are harrassed and perplexed day by day with various cares, we have enough to trouble us, and almost to make us heartily wish that the matter could be patched up, and that we could be allowed to live in peace. But our temptations are as nothing compared with those of our brethren who live in country districts. I speak it with the deepest feeling of sympathy—our temptations are as nothing com- pared with those of our brethren, who, in their solitary retirement, with no friend with whom to take counsel, have to brood over the dark prospect of the Church, amid prospects still darker as respects their beloved children. The temptations to which these men may be exposed are such that it is neither the part of brotherly kindness nor Christian wisdom that we should not be prepared to make common cause with them, and to say that every man who adheres to our prin- ciples, whatever may be the issue, shall have the fairest play. | “ Having thus contemplated the issue as a possible one, I now go on to the second part of what I am to trouble this meeting with, which is to [speak of the issue as a most undesirable one. It is an issue we are to contemplate not with complacency, but rather in the spirit of those who deprecate it as a judgment of God. Here, possibly, it might be spoken of as undesirable in itself, as bearing on personal interests. I do not affect any superiority to the care which all men have for their temporal interests. I am not insensible to the loss which we must sustain, the loss of worldly comforts and influence that we must endure. This I feel, but I speak not of it. That was prominently brought before us this forenoon, but I do not state it as one of the grounds on which we should deprecate the event as undesirable. If we be true to God and God’s people, God will put it into the hearts of His people to be true to us. “ Neither am I going to dwell on another evil which was anticipated as likely to arise from our being disestablished, viz. that there would be no security for purity of doctrine, that we might be split into sects, and lose our adherence to the standards. I am not a worshipper of the principles of an Establishment. God forbid that I should con- sider purity of doctrine to be confined to the principle of Establish- ments! Too well has it been proved that they too are liable, if not to an alteration in the standards, at least to a defection in sound doctrine. 150 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. “ Neither do I dwell on the statement that, not being an Establish- ment, we should split into sects, as if that which united us together were our stipends, our manses, and our glebes. “Yet, sir, I am still prepared to speak of the disadvantages of being disestablished. I will not worship the principle of an Establish- ment, much as I wish it to be contended for as a principle that tends to the good of nations. Nor will I dishonour the Church of Christ, which in the beginning had no countenance from the State, and which needs none, and which can go on against the State. I will not suppose that the mere fact of being thrust out would so affect our missionary proceedings that it would have the immediate effect of throwing Dr. Duff and his family into beggary. Can it be doubted that if it be but proved that these men continue to adhere to the Church on the mis- sionary field, that they would be provided for as well as we, and that the missionary zeal and liberality of the people, instead of being cooled, must by such persecution be kindled into a tenfold flame. “Having thus pointed out some of the evils on which I am not going to dwell, I desire to mention some on which I will say a few words. “T would deprecate being thrust out, in the first place, because it would be a wrong settlement of that controversy which, in the provi- dence of God, this Church of our fathers has from the beginning of its existence been honoured to maintain. It has been the signal glory of our Church that from first to last in the history of our Church the great problem which has been practically in the course of being solved has been this—whether Christ can be acknowledged at the same time as King of the nations and also as King of the Church. This is the problem which the history of our Church has hitherto been solving, and should the question now raised be determined against us, I depre- cate the result, because, so far as the eye of man can see, it would almost appear as if the prayers of our fathers had been uttered and breathed—let me not say in vain, but, so far as the world is concerned, without converting the nation to the fear of God. When we consider the absolute identity of the principles for which we are contending with those for which our fathers contended of old, and when we con- sider the contrast between what they were called on to undergo, and what we may be called on to suffer, have we not reason to be deeply humbled before Him that we should be honoured to contend for that principle? And what should we think of any privation that might come on us in comparison with the blood that our fathers shed of old ? “1 should deprecate this issue also as a great, grievous, and national MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. Το sin. Let us not forget our national responsibility. In this matter we are not merely citizens of Christ’s kingdom, but of this great nation, and let us strive that our rulers should be kept from committing the great sin of which they would be guilty if they thrust out of the Establishment those who had committed no crime, except it be a crime to,sustain the honour of the great King and Head of the Church. I am not so much afraid of the destitution of the means of grace which might exist in some parts of the land. It is even possible that such an event should be overruled, and that means may arise for carrying the free gospel of the Lord into the dark places of the land, which hitherto have been excluded from its light. But can we contem- plate without deep feelings of alarm the issue that must result from the breaking up of the Establishment, especially when taken in con- nection with the evidently tottering state of the fabrics which exist all around us? And this were a result in which all would have to bear their share. Things are hurrying on, to use a common expression, at railroad speed, even beyond what our friends the Voluntaries could have anticipated, although I cannot but feel persuaded, and sober men are disposed to think so too, that matters are tending too soon, too rapidly, to another revolution. “ And, further, let me add, that if such a disruption in the Church should be the result, it will be the signal for the breaking up, sooner or later, of many, if not all, of the most valued institutions of the land. “On these grounds we are called on to contemplate this issue with feelings of great alarm ; and we are called to bear in mind that, be the issue what it may, let our constitution be better or worse than now, still it is a step which not one of us is at liberty to take, and that not one of us will even think of voluntarily taking. If we are thrust out, the responsibility be on those who drive us out ; but we are bound to abide in possession until they come and thrust us from it—until they come and drive us away from it. There is often a temptation to man to shrink from maintaining principles in the precise position in which God has placed them, and to think how much more easily they should have maintained those principles if they had been otherwise situated. I will not hesitate to say that I have sometimes contemplated the Church’s difficulties with a feeling that it would be a relief to me to be thrust out of it. I have been compelled by the incessant harass- ments of the Church’s affairs, by the interruptions it gives to all my spiritual offices, by the hindrance which it is in the way of my studies, by the time it occupies which I could wish devoted to other purposes —I have been tempted, I say, to think it would be almost a relief to 152 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. me to be thrust out of the Establishment ; and not a few of us have felt this, goaded as we are by a kind of persecution, intensely worse to bear than if we were confined to the jail to write lectures. But, sir, 1 have always resisted this feeling as a temptation, as a sin, and felt that if I yielded to it I would be yielding to a feeling of impatience and unwillingness to wait on the Lord in His house. This is the feeling, I know, of many of my fathers and brethren. Some of our opponents have said that nothing would delight them more than if by their taunts they could drive us to relinquish our position and to throw up our emoluments. They hope to work on our feelings of fictitious honour, and compel us to abandon the post that God has given us. We may be driven from it, but it will not be by taunts. It is not by weariness, or temper, or taunts, or despair, that I am to be driven from my post ; it shall only be by the arm of power, and if by the arm of power, it shall then be lawless power. Let our opponents be thoroughly con- vinced of this, that if they will have us out of the Establishment, it must be by their own act. We did not throw up the benefice of Auchterarder, as they seem to think we did, from any feeling of honour, or because we thought in that way to make compensation for what we were doing in disobeying the law. We threw up the benefice simply because we could not retain it, and we will throw up our own benefices only when we cannot retain them, and not a moment sooner. We did not give up the benefice of Auchterarder because we thought it would be highminded or chivalrous. I hold that at this moment we are morally entitled to the benefice of Auchterarder, to be given to any minister whom we settle there. We threw it up because the law com- pelled us to throw it up, and that being a civil matter, the law can compel us to give up that which it says we ought to give up; and we will give up our own emoluments only when power exercised by a summary Act of Parliament, perhaps against law, shall come and say to us, You not only should give them up, but You must give them up ; we have the power and will compel you to do so. Many, perhaps, may say this is mercenary—they are sticking to their benefices for their own sakes. It is painful to’ think that, as Christian men, we should be so suspected ; but let it be understood that we will not give up our benefices, because they are not ours to give up, they are the people’s. “ One other remark I have to make in regard to this issue. I have, first of all, looked it in the face as a possible issue, and then as not desirable, and not to be sought for by any effort of ours ; now I look at it with all boldness as very unlikely to be realised unless a revolu- tion should come, or the commencement of it, and such an issue would MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 153 be a step to it, because it would be a step to the interference with vested rights, and that is the first step to revolution. Our opponents tell us that they are to go summarily to the Legislature, and say to them—Have the goodness to decide which is the Established Church. We will perpetrate Marnoch settlements; we will not suspend or depose our brethren ; we will restore the Strathbogie men to the office of the ministry if you bid us; we will do anything you like, only decide which is the Established Church. We will not do as the majority of the Church has done ; we will put the discipline of the Church at the feet of Czsar ; we will do all this upon your deciding that we are the Established ministers. All this might do very well if the question were an open question ; but the question is now under trial even as regards the Civil Courts themselves ; and we say, if you, the Legislature, interfere to settle that question against us, you are doing so by making against us an ex post facto law. Is it, I ask, to be credited or believed for a moment that any Government in its sound senses would listen to our friends the Moderates saying, Oh! do give us a new law, that we may punish the other party for working the old law? Would any Legislature be so absolutely infatuated as to listen to men with such a plea in their mouths as this,—These men are break- ing the law,—the law cannot vindicate itself, do come over and help the law to stand! This is an answer which we are entitled to make to any such demand of summary legislation as this. I confess that I did not fear much from this mode of tactics adopted by our opponents. I did fear that they might be wiser in their generation, and that they would try to weary us out by a variety of tortures. I did fear that we were to be worn out by long litigation, as they expected to have the Treasury at their back, if economists such as Joseph Hume would allow them the use of it. I did fear all this, and that they might attempt to wear us out by fines and imprisonments, by summary pro- cesses of execution against us. Even in that case I would not have been much afraid, for we would then be in the position which would have fairly enabled us to bring out the constitutional ground on which we stand ; and I have great faith in the ancient constitution of this country, however it may be for a time injured by the hostile decisions of one Court of the land. They might have tried by all kinds of ways to diminish our majorities in the Church Courts,—they might have trusted to men in the Church who would be willing to make conces- sions,—they might have tried to introduce into the Church men who went out from us, because they were not of us,—and such men they have been trying to introduce into our Church ; and had matters been 154 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. allowed to lie asleep, I cannot see but by a great many arts, and by wearing out our patience, they might have succeeded in wearying out our majorities, and in the course of years thus turned the scale. I do rejoice that they have been led by feelings of conscience, as they say, to bring matters to a better issue. It is always better to have opposi- tion above board than to have it working quietly underhand. Now, we know what they are wanting; and even if they draw back, and have recourse to silence and other arts, we have got the warning which is not to be forgot, and which is to us a warrant to go and raise the country on the subject; and it will be our fault if we do not take the hint. And should they propose to remain tranquil now, we may remain tranquil so far as proceedings against them are concerned ; but we would be foolish and traitors to our cause if we remained tranquil so far as the people in this country are concerned. Let the struggle be prolonged as it may, we are forewarned—we know the tender mercies of these men towards us, and towards the people of Marnoch ; and it will be our own fault if we do not make the country ring, and ask the country—Is it your pleasure that you should be kept subject to the tender mercies of these men? But, sir, I do entertain the hope that when our opponents see that we are in earnest to stand or fall by our principles, and to run all manner of risks, rather than compromise the discipline and honour of Christ in His own house,—when they see this, combined with unanimity on our part, I am not without hope that they may be yet brought by the power of God to agree with us in getting a measure from the Legislature which will do violence to the conscience of no man, but allow the Church peaceably to carry on her own business. “T now read the resolution which has been placed in my hands, and advert to the end of it. Sir, we refuse to go out of the Church unless we are driven out, and, for another reason besides those I have stated, because the minority would remain behind us. It would be some alleviation of the evil if they came out along with us. Why do I say so? Out of malice? No, but. because I hold an Erastian Establishment to be worse than none at all. It is our bounden duty to use every effort that, if we be driven out, they shall be driven out too. It is our bounden duty to bear this testimony, that the Church ought to be established on the principles which we are contending for, or that there should be no establishment in the land at all. We are bound to testify to this in the ears of the rulers of this nation, and to give them fair warning that if they compel us to take up a position out of the Church, by making it so Erastian that we cannot remain in MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 155 it, they will rouse up a number of new enemies in the ranks of those who are seeking the downfall of religious establishments. If establish- ments are not based on sound principles they had better not exist at all. It is a fearful result for any calm statesman to contemplate—to drive us into a position, which, however much we would dislike, we could not possibly avoid taking—it is a fearful contemplation that we should be driven to take up a position in opposition to the religious establish- ments of the land. A statesman will pause before he commits so great an error as this—to send out of the Establishment those men who will, in such an event, be called on to bear themselves contrary to the interests of the Establishment they are forced to leave behind. This meeting, I am sure, will adopt the resolution. “Sir, we are bound to thank God that this day a spirit of remark- able harmony has prevailed both in the private deliberations of the Commission and in the public actings of the office-bearers in this Church. Of the one or the two that thought fit to dissent from the resolution which the Commission adopted, this meeting will not think it necessary that I should say much. That one or two should be found in the rank of dissentients is not wonderful. That out of such a gathering of ministers and elders there might have been men who professed at one time to be on our side, who have now declared against us, is not to be wondered at; the wonder is that there have not been more. I will not characterise those found in the ranks of dissentients now, who were wont to be with us, further than to say, that if they have any peculiar views of their own upon some minor points of detail, while they profess great unanimity in regard to the principles themselves—if they have such minor points, they take an especially strange time to bring them forward. This is the time when honest and Christian men would sink all their differ- ences—it is a time when, if any man had a crochet in his head, he would at once throw it aside—it is the time when, if any man had a hobby, he would ride it no longer. How God may be pleased to afflict us on account of our sins I know not, but let us thank God for His blessings on us, and take courage. There never was a time of peril or threatening when less distrust prevailed amongst a party who are of one mind as to their principles, there never was a time where less of jealousy and of petty suspicion, and more of cordial union and fore- sight prevailed. It is a dark spot in some of the brightest periods of our Church’s history—I say the brightest periods, not because they were the most prosperous, but because her brightest periods have been those of her persecution. This is a glory, for giving which to our Church, we have reason to thank God ; but it is a dark spot in some 156 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. of the brightest of those periods—it is a dark spot in some of those periods, that amongst the most faithful men of the Church there were certain suspicions, certain distrusts; and can we think that we are worthy to be preserved from the errors of our forefathers? We, let the worst come to the worst in this combat, can scarcely dream of being hunted like wild beasts in the forests. Is it because we are more worthy ? No, it is because of the long-suffering patience of God—a token of His goodness towards our Church, which may impart to us hope, that whatever darkness there may be before us there is a gleam of light from the upper sanctuary—the light of love, of mutual brotherly love ; and I trust and pray that the proceedings of this meeting, which will go forth throughout the whole parishes of our land, will fill the hearts of God’s people with gladness and peaceful- ness, for we have at this moment more earnest prayers for the Church - of our fathers, for Christ's Church, offered up, than for many a long day gone by. Let us be true to ourselves, and we need not fear. Let us but stand together as a band of brothers, and we shall have the sympathy of the people of this country, for the matter is brought now to a single point. The people will no longer be perplexed with a complex question. The question before them now is one which all can understand—the question whether we are to remain ministers of the Establishment, or be driven from it. “We have now present with us, taking a part in our deliberations, representatives of the sister Church in Ireland, who are ready to carry our proceedings across the Channel—our sister Church which has itself passed through the furnace, and knows how to sympathise with and to succour us when we are in the fiery trial. We might have had more of them on this occasion but for a providential interference, which opens up to us the prospect of a still more remarkable token of the sympathy of that Church. I have a letter from the Moderator of the General Assembly of that Church, intimating the purpose of the brethren there to convene an extraordinary meeting of the Assembly for the express purpose of testifying their sympathy with us, and for using all their efforts to effect our deliverance out of our difficulties. I will not speak of the influence that Church possesses, I need only mention the fact that many members there have gone into the Parlia- ment pledged friends of the Church of Scotland. Our sister Church in Ireland trusts that we will make no surrender ; she says to us, ‘ If you make no surrender, we will stand by you to the very last’ We have the sympathies of other churches in the land. We have the co- operation of our sister Church in England, and another Church, which MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 157 I call a sister Church ; we have the sympathy and co-operation of the Wesleyan body. I hail these things as tokens that, though God may be heating the furnace, He means to make the furnace instrumental for welding His people closer together. Let our deliverance be near or far off, God intends these trials to be instrumental to make the Christians of this nation understand one another better, and love one another more. When we look at the motely group banded against the Church, some of whom hold one principle, some another, and some no principle at all—when we see them all uniting together with no one bond to cement them, but opposition to the Church of our fathers, it is a profound and encouraging thought that God may be organising a holy alliance of another kind, an alliance of Churches that fear His name, and will abide by the truth as it is in Jesus, an alliance of Churches that will lead men of various principles to unite together, and to maintain their union in the Lord.” Thus early Mr.. Candlish was in the habit of regarding as inevitable the Disruption, which was nearly two years later. In a letter to his friend Mr. Urquhart, dated 24th June of this year, written in view of the pending election of a member of Parliament in Wigtownshire, he says, in closimg— “ All this political business is very disgusting. But we must do our part, although I much fear, so far as our poor Establishment is con- cerned, in vain. We must act according to appearances, and to the best of our judgment amid doubtful contingencies. But God is evidently taking the matter into His own hands—frustrating human schemes, and baffling human sagacity. The powers that be are infatuated. I sup- pose it will be found that so-called Conservatives, blind to religious truth, are really destructives. But the Lord reigneth, and our Church, humbled, tried, temporally ruined, may and will yet be signally blessed.” Ina speech delivered at a meeting of friends of the Church held in Glasgow in the middle of September, Mr. Candlish entered fully into the question of co-ordinate jurisdiction in answer to accusations that the Church was claiming a Papal supremacy. Among other things he said— “It has been said of us that we are asserting a Popish lordship over the Civil Courts. We do assert, certainly, that the Civil Courts have no right to dictate to us in spiritual matters, and we assert also that when 158 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. the Civil Courts call matters civil, which we hold to be spiritual, it does not take these matters out of our jurisdiction. Were it otherwise we should have no power left us at all. They have called taking a pre- sentee on trial, ordination, and deposition, civil matters ; and if we have not the right of saying what things are spiritual, if we are to take the determination of this point from the Civil Courts, it is plain that the whole spiritual powers invested in the Church are at once destroyed, and the line of demarcation is blotted out between the things of Cesar and the things of God. But is this anything like a claim of lordship over them? Do we ask them to take our definition of what is civil ? Do we say, as the Church of Rome says, We pronounce a case of murder by an ecclesiastical person to be a spiritual matter, and we prohibit you from meddling with it? Do we exempt our persons or properties from their jurisdiction ? No, sir, we allow them the same liberty which we claim for ourselves. We do not presume to prescribe to them what is the law, or to decide what is civil, neither do we allow them to pre- scribe to us, and decide what is ecclesiastical. The broad distinction between the jurisdiction of the Church and the State is not so much what is the matter for decision itself, as the consequences which it must carry. We are very often asked, Who is to be the judge between us, when the one party pronounces a matter to be civil, and the other to be spiritual? There is no judge at all. The one may hold it to be civil, and the other to be spiritual ; but the sentence of the Ecclesias- tical Courts can alone bring in spiritual results, whereas the decisions of the Civil Courts bring in civil results. And if the sentence of the Church Courts is attempted to carry civil effects by the Church alone, that is an interference with the prerogative of the civil magistrate ; and if, on the other hand, the decision of the Civil Courts is made to carry spiritual consequences, that is an interference with the jurisdic- tion of the Church. Take this very matter of the settlement of a minister. Suppose the two Courts at issue as to whether the presentee is a suitably qualified person, and that the one regards the question as purely civil, and the other as purely spiritual, we don’t find fault with the Civil Court for calling it civil ; but they are only entitled to deal with it according as it carries civil consequences—in other words, to deal with the temporalities; and they have no right to say we are lording it over them when we deal with it as to spiritual consequences also, namely, to settle the question of admission. This statement we have heard over and over again from the public press, and men in high places continue to charge us with claiming a Popish domination over the State, and coming from these quarters we may have the less reason MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 159 to be provoked by it; but proceeding from men who ought to have studied the Popish controversy, if they have not, and who have solemnly sworn to oppose Popery—coming from men who ought to know the distinction between Popery and Presbyterianism—it is a thing almost beyond one’s patience to bear. “The question now to be decided is, whether it is the will of the country, the will of the people in this land, that the constitution in Church and State, spite of the law of Patronage, shall continue as set- tled at the Revolution, and secured by the Treaty of Union? But the settlement of this question involves another question still more serious —the question of religious establishments. We are now called upon not merely to insist that the Establishment shall continue to be what it was held to be at the Revolution Settlement, but to insist that there shall be no Establishment on any other terms. Our warfare then must be not merely to keep in the Establishment ourselves, but our deter- mination must be to take good care, if we are thrust out of the Estab- lishment, and the Establishment remains on Erastian principles, that we will bear our testimony against such an Establishment as anti- Scriptural. This is a very serious issue to which men seem to be pre- cipitating the Church. We are now called to contend for the entire consistency of these two principles—the principle of an Establishment, and the principle of Church independence. But we are also called to bear our testimony to this, that if they are not consistent, if the country will not recognise them as consistent, there must be an end of the Establishment altogether. Far better the Voluntary principle carried out into full effect, than the principle which subjects the Church of Christ to the power of Cesar. The Voluntary principle—or the Voluntary plan of supporting the ministry—is right and Scriptural so far as it goes. It is, indeed, not the whole truth of Scripture, but it is part of the truth. But the principle of subjection in things spiritual to the civil power is anti-Scriptural. We might tolerate a Voluntary Church, but we can never tolerate an Erastian one.” CHAPTER VIL. Princeton College confers on Mr. Candlish the degree of D.D.— Speech at Perth — Patrons tampering with probationers — Case of Mr. Munro — Sabbath observance— Case of Culsalmond — Presbyterian Church in Ireland — Speech at Leith — Anti-Patronage movement in Presbytery of Edinburgh—Speech in Assembly Rooms—Letter to Mr. Gibson, Belfast— Sabbath observance — Abolition of Patronage — Speech at Edinburgh — Letter to Mr. Dunlop—Letter to Mr. John Hamilton—Movement of the Forty—Speech on. Amip the universal worry and heat of the great controversy in which he was engaged, it could not fail to be gratifying to Mr. Candlish to receive a letter, from which I give the follow- ing extracts :— “ ELIZABETHTOWN, NEW JERSEY, October 2, 1841. “ Rey. and Dear Sir—Whilst to you personally an entire stranger, I feel myself tolerably well acquainted with your character, and with the decided and noble part you take in the present controversy of owr mother Church. Our whole Church is awake to the importance of your conflict, nor do I know of a minister, elder, or layman in the length and breadth of this land who does not entirely sympathise with you and the beloved brethren who are so ready to hazard all, that the Lord Jesus Christ may rule as King in His own Church, which He has purchased with His blood. You have the sympathies and the prayers of our whole American Zion, and were it desirable, you would have her contributions also to aid you in building churches, should you be dis- established. With one voice your Moderate Erastian party, led on by Dr. Cook, are condemned as the betrayers of Samson, and as deliver- ing him over to the Philistines. If the unanimous approval of our whole Church can cheer you to continue the conflict, let whatever con- sequences ensue, be assured that you and your brethren have it. “Your many excellent pamphlets, and your many speeches made MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 161 at different meetings, have been extensively read in this country. Many of your speeches have been reprinted in our religious papers, and many extracts from your pamphlets; so that your name is as familiar to us as if you resided among us, and were a pastor of one of our churches. Your speech at the meeting of 1200 ministers and elders at the West Church was republished here last week. You will not therefore wonder at our desire to honour one who is honouring himself in defending the purity of the Church of our fathers. “ With the history and character of Princeton College, New Jersey, over which Wotherspoon and Jonathan Edwards once presided, you may be familiar. It is a purely Presbyterian College, and one of the most noted and venerable and flourishing in this land. Among its trustees are the Governor of New Jersey, Loutherd, the President of the Senate of the United States, and such men as Alexander, Miller, Phillips, of ‘New York. At my suggestion this College, at its annual commencement last week, conferred on you the title of Doctor in Divinity, and by a unanimous vote. And it was conferred, sir, not for the purpose of honouring you, but to show our estimate of your great services in your controversies, and to manifest to the world where, and on what side, are to be found all our sympathies. The conferring of the degree will be communicated to you officially by the President or Secretary of the Trustees, and my fervent wish is that you may not decline to receive it—Most respectfully, your obedient servant, “ NICHOLAS Murray.” Curiously enough, and for the reason stated in the follow- ing official communication, it was not till several months had elapsed that Dr. Candlish had authoritative information of the degree conferred on him :— “ PRINCETON, N.J., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, March 24, 1842. * Reverend Sir—I have the honour officially to inform you that, in consideration of your high attainments in theological knowledge, and your distinguished usefulness in the Church of Christ, the Trustees of the College of New Jersey have conferred on you the degree of Doctor in Divinity. “ And I have to beg you will forgive my remissness in not giving you earlier notice of the fact above stated. Through numerous engage- ments I omitted to write at the time, and afterwards it escaped my notice, until the inquiries of the Rev. Samuel Miller, D.D., reminded M 162 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. me of the duty which I had omitted.—With sentiments of high respect, I am, Rev. Sir, yours, etc. JAMES CARNAHAN, “ President of the College of New Jersey.” It was not till the year 1865, twenty-four years later, that the University of Edinburgh conferred on Dr. Candlish the same degree. At a meeting of friends-of the Church held in Perth on the 14th October, and presided over by the Marquis of Bread- albane, Dr. Candlish adverted to various aspects in the exist- ing state of the controversy, both encouraging and discouraging. There had been a change of Ministry. The Whigs were out, and the Conservatives were now at the helm. He counselled circumspection and firmness. He said— “We have repeatedly told the Government, and we must continue to tell them, that we insist for a full and adequate measure of justice. If they are really earnest in desiring to settle the question, let us press upon them with all respect that it can only be effectually settled by a full measure of non-intrusion ; otherwise they might be disposed to put a screw upon us, to see with how little we can live, how little will keep us in the Church. We are under water, and they may raise us up till just one feature is above the surface, and say, Can you breathe now? But if we are to serve even their purpose, or do any real good, they must raise us till we can speak, and speak comfortably and boldly. We must not only have space to breathe, but to speak and act freely, or they had better keep us down, and apply the screw until they drive us out of the Establishment altogether. I for one can conceive a measure which might not form to my conscience an imperative ground of secession from the Church, but which would nevertheless cramp my energies and spirit, impair my powers of usefulness, take away my comfort, and make me feel, a degraded man. We must continue to agitate for a measure which will not only satisfy our consciences, but which will preserve the people from intrusions like that of Marnoch. “We are placed under no obligation at present to surrender our privileges in the Establishment. I myself feel under no obligation to do so as yet. Nay more, my lord, although the claims put forth by the Court of Session were sustained by the highest tribunal in the land, even that would not touch my conscience as to remaining in the Estab- lishment. Even in that event, we would be still enabled to say to the MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 163 State, Ours is the right interpretation of the conditions of connection between us. If you do not think so, you may put us out, but we will not go willingly or of our own accord. I have been twitted with the oath of allegiance, and asked, why I do not obey the civil power? But the oath of allegiance does not say that the Sovereign or Civil Courts are supreme in matters ecclesiastical. It no doubt binds me to obey the Sovereign, but only as represented by all the Courts of the king- dom, and the General Assembly is as much one of these as the Court of Session itself. Therefore we will continue to go on as we have done, and if the State shall say we are not the Established Church, the State must cast us out. The rights for which we are contending are guar- anteed to the Church by statute. We are members of the common- wealth as well as members of the Church, and we will not give up the constitution which is dear to us; and to surrender our present rights would be to put a stab into the very vitals of liberty and of the con- stitution of the kingdom. We say to the Legislature, You may do this, but we will not do it by voluntarily leaving the Church. The teinds are the patrimonial inheritance of the people, and therefore, by leaving the Church I am surrendering what is not mine, but what belongs to the people. I will not take such a responsibility upon me. The civil power may subject us to punishment, to fines and imprisonment, and if so harassed we have the power to leave the Church. But it has not come to this yet. We have the power to go out from the Establishment, but this necessity has not yet been imposed on us. If driven out of the Church, we shall be bound to employ our utmost efforts to prevent the uprearing of an Erastian Establishment, and if this should take place, there will be an end to a State Church altogether.” In the course of his speech at Perth Dr. Candlsh ad- verted to a line of action on the part of patrons in disre- garding the wishes of the parishioners, and in tampering with probationers, and referred especially to the conduct of the Town-Council of Edinburgh having issued a presentation to Mr. Munro, a teacher in one of the hospitals, in face of a petition from the people in favour of another, and in endea- vouring to commit their presentee to a certain course of action on ecclesiastical questions. This statement called forth an indignant rejoinder, in the Town-Council, from Mr. Dunbar, to whom Dr. Candlish had specially adverted. To this 164 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. Dr. Candlish replied in a letter to the Witness, in which he says— “T still think that for a patron, and especially for one who exer- cises patronage as the representative of the people of Edinburgh, to treat the petition from Fala, and speak of it as Mr. Dunbar did and continues to do, evinces a spirit of tyranny. The unanimous voice of a Christian congregation, recommending a man of acknowledged excel- lence and high standing, would have more respect paid to it by every private patron in Scotland, than by this member of a corporate and representative body. “T further repeat, that trafficking on the part of patrons with pro- bationers—extracting letters from them with a view to their appoint- ment, and endeavouring to get them committed to a certain course of conduct in the ecclesiastical courts—is a proceeding altogether dis- creditable. The form of a simoniacal paction may be carefully avoided, and there may be nothing for the discipline of the Church to lay hold of, but the spirit of simony appears to me to be in such a transaction. And if it refer to the extent and limits of the obedience to be rendered to the authority of the Church, however it may be coloured or disguised, I confess I would shrink from any concern in a correspondence so ensnaring to the conscience of a man who is to be called upon to take a solemn vow on that very head. I say I would shrink from such a commerce, as I would not directly or indirectly have to answer for par- ticipation in what might, even by possibility, imply the commission of sin in the matter of such an oath.” I have noticed this incident partly because, at the time, it was understood to be a practice on the part of patrons to come to some understanding with probationers as to the course they would follow in the questions at issue between the Church and the Civil Courts, and partly because the case of Mr. Munro, in which Dr. Candlish was so intimately concerned, became a historical one, the final act of the Church regarding it being that of the Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale in November 1842, when, on the motion of Dr. Cunningham, the Presby- tery of Dalkeith were prohibited from proceeding farther with his settlement. Dr. Candlish always showed a deep interest in the matter MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D, 165 of Sabbath observance, and at this time there was much in- terest taken in it, in consequence of the opening of the Edin- burgh and Glasgow Railway, and the earnest desire of the religious portion of the community of all denominations that this railway should not be made available for traffic on the Lord’s day. At the end of October Dr. Candlish addressed a public meeting on this subject, “characterised by his usual eloquence and power.” At the stated meeting of the Synod of Lothian and Tweed- dale in November, he moved an overture to the General As- sembly, the object of which will be sufficiently apparent from the following sentences in the speech by which he supported its transmission. He said— “The overture was suggested by the reported proceedings of the Presbytery of Garioch. Of course these proceedings were not properly before them ; they were not entitled to suppose that the report alluded to was perfectly correct and true, and they were not entitled to sit in judgment on the proceedings of the Presbytery of Garioch. But at the same time, he trusted that no member of Synod would stand upon these technical objections, and prevent them discussing the general question which their reported conduct affected. The Church had already seen one fatal example of disobedience to its authority on the part of one of her Presbyteries, leading, too, to consequences which threatened to involve the Church in increased difficulties and embarrassments. And it was not difficult to suppose that other Pres- byteries might be found who would follow the example. A report had reached them that this Presbytery of Garioch had given intimation that the example set by the Presbytery of Strathbogie would not only be followed, but improved upon by them. This overture referred to the reported conduct of this Presbytery in proceeding prematurely to the final settlement of the presentee (to Culsalmond) in disregard of the law of the Church, in disregard of the special objections of the parish- ioners who were communicants, in disregard of a complaint and appeal on the part of members of their own court, and of the parties at their bar. “They had lately been encouraged to believe and hope that the Government of the country were disposed to take the whole question into their serious and favourable consideration. They had something 166 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. like an encouragement to believe that if the Government did so, the opposing parties in the Church might more readily come to an under- standing. It was now, however, plain that the ground of any hope which they might have entertained was gone, the only ground of hope having been built upon an expectation of forbearance on both sides, and especially on the side of those who must be well aware that if they disregarded the law of the Church there was no alternative but to pro- ceed to extremities against them. On that account he deeply deplored the new difficulties which this case had thrown in the way of a settle- ment. It was clear that the Presbytery of Garioch contemplated, not only a disregard of the Veto law, but a disregard of all the laws applicable to such a case ; it was clear that they contemplated a course which would leave the Church no alternative but to exercise discipline, to the utmost extent, against them. And if the Church was to be thus rent asunder, all hopes of peace might be abandoned. And if they were to be deprived of the privileges of the Establishment—if the Church of their fathers were to fall—he must take the liberty of saying that the responsibility of such an event would lie, in a great degree, with those who had originated measures to which no duty called them, and which they must have foreseen would compel the Church, according to her conscientious views of duty, to proceed to extremities against them in vindication of her own authority, and the honour of her great Head. He could not but hope that the proceedings of which he had been speaking would find no approval, even from those from whom he gene- rally differed in this matter, nay, he rejoiced to think that some of the fathers of the Church, who usually acted with the opposite party, had already addressed remonstrances to the Presbytery of Garioch on the course which they threatened to pursue, and he would fain hope that they might not yet be too late. However, seeing that one Presbytery had already set at defiance the authority of the Church, and had, in consequence, been deposed by last Assembly ; sceing that this sentence had created a very serious barrier against a satisfactory adjudication of the Church’s affairs, and that another Presbytery was apparently dis- posed to follow and improvg upon the example of the former one, they could not but await the issue with great anxiety and alarm, as it was possible that another deposition might be rendered necessary, which would throw new embarrassments in the way of a settlement.” The conduct of the Presbytery of Garioch was also brought under consideration of the Commission of Assembly, which met in November; and Dr. Bryce, having alluded to the riotous MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 167 behaviour of the people in the church at Culsalmond on the day when the Presbytery met for the settlement of the minister, Dr. Candlish said— “He was not disposed to vindicate riotous proceedings in any place—teast of all in a place of worship. But if he were to give his opinion which was the greatest act of desecration—that which the people committed in the church, or that which the Presbytery would have committed if they had been allowed, he for one had no hesitation in saying that the desecration committed by the Presbytery was a great deal more sinful in the sight of God, and, according to all just notions of the sanctity of actions or of places, a more heinous desecration than that of which the people were said to be guilty. He believed that riotous behaviour anywhere was sinful ; but there were some sins more heinous than riotous behaviour ; and he held that ministers of Christ, acting in defiance of the authority of the Church to which they had vowed obedience, trampling under foot the sacred rights and privi- leges, as well as the dearest interests of the people, and desecrating the solemn act of ordination by performing it without warrant and against law—with no sanction from the great Head of the Church— was an act so serious, that, taken into comparison with it, the riotous behaviour of a few disorderly people—men who had been brought together from a distance by the conduct of the Presbytery itself, was to confound all distinctions between right and wrong, and to level all distinctions of morality in the very dust. He had no intention to defend those who were convened in the Church. He did not know who they were. He had seen it stated that there was present but a small proportion of the people of Culsalmond. But when it was publicly noised abroad that a scene was to be acted such as occurred at Culsalmond, when the news spread through the whole district that such a terrible enormity was to be perpetrated, he must say it would not have been surprising if, instead of the mixed crowd who probably filled the church, a far worse assemblage had convened, if all the off- scourings of all the neighbouring parishes had been brought together to witness such a scene, which, if it took place at all, he must say was worthy of taking place in the presence of such a multitude rather than the Christian people of Culsalmond.” ’ At the ordinary meeting of the Presbytery of Edinburgh Dr. Candlish, in compliance with the instructions of the Com- mission of Assembly, moved the appointment of a committee 168 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. to deal with Mr. Grant of Leith, one of the ministers who had assisted the deposed ministers of Strathbogie, contending that there was no obligation resting on any one, except, per- haps, that of adherence to a party, to have acted in sucha way. It appears from a letter to Mr. Dunlop that at this time Dr. Candlish was feeling very nervous about a proposed move- ment to hold a special meeting of the Irish General Assembly to consider the Scottish Church question. He says—“It won't do for us to be advising Dr. Cooke to refuse a requisi- tion from seven Presbyteries, though their Assembly meeting just now would do no good. There would be wrangling and disputing, and no adequate crisis to unite them. The hostility of Government is covert just now, and this general declara- tion, unmeaning as it is, would hinder a decided movement.” Meanwhile he was busy in doing what he could to pre- pare the people at home for the apprehended crisis. He moved one of the resolutions at a meeting held in Leith on the 2d December at the formation of a Church Defence Association, indicating the dangers to which the Church was exposed from the minority within the Church, and from the action of the Legislature, and urged his audience to exertion on her behalf. “What will the people of Scotland say? Will they have an Established Church composed of men who would look with com- placency on scenes like those of Marnoch—ien who will receive orders from the Civil Courts to ordain ministers over reclaiming congregations, or men whose whole offence is that they cannot and will not intrude a pastor upon an unwilling people? If they answer it, as I trust they will, in favour of the latter, then let them also consider that as the cause is theirs, they must help us in fighting its battles. We are willing to face obloquy and opposition on its behalf, but we must have the support of the Christian people, and that not merely from time to time in such enthusiastic meetings as I rejoice to see here assembled, but also deliberately and perseveringly they must assist in supplying the means for carrying on the harassing warfare in the MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 169 Civil Courts ; they must influence their neighbours by all the means in their power, and keep up their zeal in the cause by attending to the subject more closely than ever.” The beginning of the year 1842 was a critical time in the history of the Church of Scotland. A Conservative Govern- ment was at the helm of affairs, and their declared purpose was to propose legislation in her affairs with a view to her preservation as an Establishment, and to terminate the con- flict between her and the Civil Courts. The question came to be whether the proposed legislation was sufficient to secure the principle of non-intrusion, for which the Church was con- tending. At the ordinary meeting of the Presbytery of Edin- burgh in January an overture to the General Assembly was moved by Dr. Gordon and supported by Dr. Chalmers, one of the sections of which was as follows :— “That the General Assembly, while they continue to give their earnest and favourable attention to the obtaining of such a measure as shall fully, and by a fixed rule, recognise the continued opposition of the majority of a congregation as a conclusive ground for rejecting a presentee, do also take into their serious consideration, with a view to the deliverance of the Church from her present difficulties, the pro- priety of seeking the abolition of the law of Patronage, as, especially in the construction now attempted to be put upon it, involving a vio- lation of the constitution of the Church and kingdom secured at the Revolution, and unalterably ratified by the Act of Security and Treaty of Union.” The transmission of the overture was opposed by Dr. Simpson and Dr. Mui, in reply to whom Dr. Candlish spoke. He said— “The sentiments which we have heard from Dr. Muir do not sur- prise me, because we are aware that Dr. Muir has always considered the principle for which we contend as inconsistent with the principles of an Establishment, and even inconsistent with the right order of Christ’s house. We are fully aware of that, though I am not sure that either now, or on any former occasion, have the grounds of that opinion been clearly stated. It does not, however, surprise me to hear these senti- 170 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. ments from Dr. Muir; but I confess it does surprise me to hear him say that we are now taking a step in advance, because I do not under- stand that he agrees with the sentiments, though he may second the motion of Dr. Simpson ; and I think he will be willing to admit that our motion is in strict accordance with our principle, in the sense in which we have ever contended for it. “T deny that we are in any sense taking a step in advance, except in so far as some of our brethren have been brought to see that the abolition of Patronage is one mode of extricating us from our present embarrassments. We have refused to go down, even by a single step, from the high position which we have always occupied ; but we say that all the recent proceedings of the Committee (non-intrusion) will show that, so far from manifesting any undue haste in taking a step in advance, we have manifested throughout such a regard to the interests of the Establishment, and such a sense of the dangers that surround it, that we were not prepared to refuse or to reject even the lowest measure which would satisfy the demands of our principle. “With regard to the remark that this motion may be but a step to more serious evils, I agree with Dr. Muir in his apprehension of the probable issue of the present dark aspect of affairs. But if these evils should take place, the motion can in no sense be regarded as a step to such a consummation. The whole previous proceedings of the Church have been taken to maintain the supremacy of her great Head, and the spiritual liberties of the people committed to her care. And, further, I may remind the Presbytery that this is not the first time in the his- tory of the Church of Scotland, when, not through any intention on her part, but the infatuation of those who were opposed to her, her contendings have led to the most disastrous consequences, for which they and not the Church must be held responsible. The Church is now contending, as she did of old, for great principles ; and if the issue of this contest be, as it has been in former times, anarchy and con- fusion, the blame is not to be laid at the door of the Church. No, sir, it lies at the door of those who would not allow this great National Institution to subsist in hey integrity, securing the best interests of the country. A good man—one who fears God—is often compelled to maintain his principles by a course of conduct which, not from its native tendency, but from the obstacles thrown in his way, may lead to results from which he may start back in alarm. But the responsi- bility is not with him. And so with us. We have a duty to discharge ; and if the issue of our present contendings be the dissemination of infidelity, and a consummation yet more awful, in the anarchy and MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. Aly fis confusion of the country, may ensue ; if the issue be so, yet the blame will not rest with the Church, but with those who thwarted and opposed the Church, who compel her to take an attitude which evil men may abuse for their own purposes ; but which the Church has assumed from a sacred regard to the honour of her great Head and the spiritual interests of the people of Scotland. “T trust that Iam as much alive as Dr. Simpson can ne to the danger of the overthrow of the Establishment, and to the disastrous consequences which would result from that overthrow ; but this I will say, that these considerations can only be addressed to Christian men when they are discussing what they themselves admit to be a question of expediency. To address these considerations to Christian and con- scientious men, when they take their stand on the ground of principle, and consequently are not at liberty to be guided by reasons of expedi- ency, is needlessly to afflict them with the prospect of evil which they have no means of remedying, while it neither convinces their under- standing nor changes their mind. And, further, I must say, that great as are the dangers which I apprehend to the Establishment, I prefer the downfall of the Establishment infinitely rather than any com- promise of principle. Of the two things—the Church existing as a Voluntary Church, or existing as a Church Establishment with even an apparent sacrifice of honour or of principle—I am convinced that her existence as a Voluntary Church is far more likely to promote the glory of God and to win souls to Christ. “Let us suppose that we acquiesce in Dr. Simpson’s motion, it might for a time avert our troubles ; it might even restore permanent tranquillity and peace, but it would be purchased at the sacrifice of character, at the sacrifice of the affections of the people ; it would leave the Church like a dead log upon the waters, incapable of making any strenuous effort for reclaiming those practical heathens to whom Dr. Simpson so impressively referred. As regards our prospects of over- taking the spiritual destitution that exists among us, I am persuaded that that prospect is utterly hopeless if we are to remain a Church Establishment with the loss of principle, the loss of character, the sacrifice of the confidence and esteem of the people. With these views I am not affected by the appeal which Dr. Simpson has made ; and I must say further, in reference to what fell from him, that the Government had no need to assume a hostile attitude, but only to let us alone, and the Church would destroy herself—I must say that I should be exceed- ingly thankful at this moment if the Church were left to herself. Rather than a settlement that should involve an apparent compromise 172 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. of principle, rather let the Church struggle on. It is matter deeply to be deplored that Presbytery after Presbytery, and band after band of our brethren, set themselves in an attitude of hostility to the Church ; it is matter to be deplored that the Presbytery to which Dr. Simpson referred, and of which I think I have some idea, should have indicated an intention to pursue the same infatuated course ; but better, I say, to leave the two parties to fight out their own contests within the Church, to separate, if that must be the result, in consequence of the exercise of civil authority on the one hand, and the exercise of ecclesias- tical authority on the other ; but, better this than that the interference of the State should involve a national sin, greater than it would be even to leave the Church still in her present embarrassments. To make the terms of Establishment such as would be implied in the measure to which Dr. Simpson has referred—to make such terms for the Church, would be sinful, unlawful, wrong. Ifthe Government are determined either to introduce a bad measure, or to let us alone, I would infinitely rather choose that course which would least involve the country in wrong and in sin. “The policy uniformly pursued towards the Church has compelled us, against our will, to discuss the lowest possible measure which we could submit to. It is irksome, in our dealings with statesmen, to come down from the high ground of principle, and to consider the miserable question of what measure will enable us to keep our head above water, and not drive us out of the Church. Such a mode of dealing with the Church is unworthy of any Government—unworthy of any statesman. Yet this is the way in which we have been uniformly dealt with by statesmen and the Government. The question has always been, not what is best for the Church—what is best for the what is best for the country—but what will keep interests of religion you in the Church, what will make you to continue to keep your head above water, even though all the time you may be panting and strug- gling for breath. “ And here I am quite prepared to say of Dr. Simpson’s measure, that it is inadequate to keep’ us in the Church, that is to say, it is not a measure to which we can submit; it is not one which we can sit under. In short, the position in which Dr. Simpson’s motion would place the Church, would be the same as that in which Lord Aberdeen’s bill would place her if passed into a law. It would be the same ques- tion with which we should be called upon to deal as to the time and manner of our separation from the State. Both a question merely measures are equally fatal to the Establishment. In that sense, there- MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 173 fore, I meet the proposition by saying, not merely that we do not like it, but I meet it by saying, that it is not a proposition under which we can act—that if it were the law of the land to-morrow, it would not warrant us in repealing the Veto regulations. It could not be obeyed. The whole of this controversy between Dr. Simpson and us turns upon the meaning of the term non-intrusion, and it is strange indeed that at this time of day we should be driven to discuss the meaning of that word. It is not to give effect to that principle, if we reject a presentee for reasons, or adherence to reasons, or for anything else than the con- tinued opposition of the people. Dr. Simpson has spoken of the mean- ing of the term will; let him refine upon that word as he may, it implies that much. He may introduce qualifying epithets, and speak of its being the reasonable will of the people. Sir, every man’s will is entitled to be assumed as reasonable until you prove the reverse. If it is said that a thing is not to be done against my will, you are not afterwards to restrict my liberty by saying that you did not mean my will, but my reasonable will. So unquestionably it is not the reasons of the people, nor the fact that they have stated their reasons, but it is the simple will or opposition of the people that is to bar the settlement of the presentee. Is it not well known that the uniform mode in which this principle has been defended in the Church and in the country is this, that the pastoral relation could not be formed without consent of parties? I appeal to all who have taken part in this dis- cussion, if the principle was not uniformly based on this argument, that the pastoral relation was a tie so intimate, so lasting, and so sacred, that it could not be formed without the consent of parties. The Veto was defended on this principle, it being assumed that a congregation that did not dissent was consenting. It was on this ground we defended the principle of non-intrusion ; and is it not manifest from this that it is not reasons, or adherence to reasons, but the mere opposition of the people, that is effectual to prevent a pastor from being intruded against their will? The Veto law itself makes this manifest. Let all due precaution be taken to ascertain that it is their will in reference to the presentee’s settlement among them that they are expressing ; that they are expressing their mind upon that question, and not upon some other that may be mixed up with it; let facility be afforded to prove that they are actuated by factious motives ; but still, beyond a doubt, it is the meaning of the Veto law, as an exponent of the non-intrusion principle, that it is not the reasons expressed, nor their reasons adhered to, but simply the feeling and conviction in the minds of the people, that is to prevent a man from being minister of that parish. They are 174 MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. deliberately called upon to give a judgment on this question: Ought this man to be appointed minister of the parish, yea, or nay? Other parties have to deliberate on the same question—the Presbytery, for example ; and surely it would be absurd to limit the will of the Presbytery in their department. The will of the Presbytery deliberat- ing on that question is not anything else than their free determination and final resolution upon it—quite apart from their grounds or reasons. What else can the will of the people be ? “We could submit to a measure which required the people to state their reasons ; but Dr. Simpson has already allowed that we have all along specified the extent to which the people should state their reasons, and the object for which they should be stated. For example, the statement of reasons might lead to explanations which would not only show that these reasons were wrong, but which would induce the people to desire to receive the presentee as their minister. Further, if factious motives were to be inquired into, that again might be facilitated by the statement of reasons ; for though I hate the notion of submitting the people to the inquiries of an interested party in every case, yet this would not destroy the non-intrusion principle. But to me the most wonder- ful of all these statements is that Dr. Simpson says the only consistent course we can follow is to object to the statement of reasons altogether, while, at the same time, he himself specifies the precise extent to which we were prepared to admit them—first, to make the opinion of the people more deliberate and solemn ; second, to allow the Presbytery an opportunity, not to deal with them, for that is only another phrase for tyrannising over them, but to offer explanations ; and, third, to allow a proof that the people are not actuated by factious and malicious motives. Now, reasons might be taken on either of these three points of view ; but are not these specific purposes, which, being secured, the reasons might be set aside as if they had never been? and then there would still remain the opposition of the people. Thus we were willing to admit reasons, at the same time taking care to keep them in their proper place ; but Dr. Simpson seems to intimate that he would not admit them at all, without letting them in like a flood. If he will insist upon this, we shall coincide with him, and then what shall we do? Submit to the Government measure or to his? No; but we will take our stand a peg higher, and say we shall not admit the statement of reasons at all. That will be the effect of any argu- ment which shall prove that we are not consistent in the admission of reasons, not for the sake of our consistency, I can vote for that ; but if he satisfies me that the admission of reasons leads to the adoption of MEMORIALS OF ROBERT SMITH CANDLISH, D.D. 1.7, his measure, I say not that we shall submit to it, but rather that we will not consent to the people assigning reasons at all. “Even in its original form Lord Aberdeen’s bill authorised Pres- byteries to judge of the reasons or objections of the people, not merely viewed absolutely by themselves, but considered relatively to the par- ticular state and condition of each parish. It was that idea, and that alone, which was brought out a little more fully by the suggestion of Sir George Sinclair. All the world remembers Lord Aberdeen’s famous illustration of his principle by the case of a presentee with red hair. Of course, Lord Aberdeen never imagined that any Presbytery would be so absurd as to think that red hair was really a good objection. Whatever he may think of the intelligence or conscientiousness of Pres- byteries, he never went so far as that. But he said, You may, if you think the prejudice against red hair as likely to interfere with a man’s usefulness, on your own responsibility homologate the objection and give effect to it ; and, if you do, the Civil Courts shall not touch you. You may reject for red hair, as an objection not good in itself but good in the circumstances. That was the length to which Lord Aberdeen > went, to allow effect to be given to reasons not conclusive in them- selves but conclusive in the circumstances of the case. But what does Dr. Simpson propose?