\J on YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY A LETTER TO THE LOBD CHANCELLOB, BY THE BEAN OP FACULTY. JPrice 2/6. o A LETTER TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR, CLAIMS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND IN KBGARD TO ITS JURISDICTION AND ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN ITS POLITY. By JOHN HOPE, Esq. DEAN OF iPACULTY. SECOND EDITION. EDINBURGH : WILLIAM WHYTE AND CO., 13, GEORGE STREET; BOOKSELLERS TO THE QUEEN DOWAGER. LONDON: JOHN MURRAY. 1839. ' It does therefore appear to me, that this plan of leaving it to the General Assembly to determine what ought to be done, leaves the matter in this state of almost inextricable diflSculty, that while you escape for the time from those insuperable perplexities through which Parliament itself cannot see its way to any clear result, you are asked to do away the existing law, and to put the whole power of making a new constitution in the hands of the ecclesiastical assembly ; numerous body of individuals, under whose judgment it is impossible for this House of Commons or the legislature in general to know what it is probable that they may get in place of the existing law of patronage. And then is it nothing that the state, the legislature, which in enacting laws constitutes the state, is to destroy that con stitution of the Church and State which does exist, and to commit to other bodies the power of originating (not of electing ministers, that is not the thing, but originating) the law of the state upon these important matters of the institution of ministers for every parish in Scotland ? I imagine that it is altogether without precedent in the House of Commons to do this, and that that is a conclusion to which this Committee will not easily come.' Lord Moncreiff. — Evidence before Patronage Committee, March 1834, p. 188. OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. Judgment of House of Lords on the illegality of the Veto. Resolution of General Assembly, May 1839, to enforce the Veto. Appointment of Committee to obtain a recognition by Parliament of the Jurisdiction of the Church, and an Act to alter the law of Patronage. Admissions by Dr. Chalmers that the passing the Veto was " a Blunder" on the part of the Church. — that the measure ought to be materially altered. Points in the Auchterarder Case only a small part of the alarm ing proceedings of the Church. Objects of this Letter. Importance of changes proposed by the Church. — not applicable only to Scotland. — must on same grounds be extended to England, if adopted in Scotland. — might be as easily introduced in England. — if in themselves proper, as necessary in the English Church. Proceedings of the advocates of these changes exhibit the desire to obtain power and influence. Attempt to excite agitation in Scotland, by assuming the language of the struggle against persecution in 1638. Principles promulgated by the Members of the Committee, and by the leading advocates of proposed changes. Doctrine of Divine Right of the people to choose or to have a vote on the nomination of ministers. — treated as part of the privileges and liberty belonging to the people as members of the Churcli on earth. Doctrine of Divine Origin of Presbytery. — of Divine Origin of Independent Jurisdiction of Estab lished Church in all Ecclesiastical matters. Examples — Opinions of Mr. Candllsh. Origin of doctrines of Divine Right of Christian people. Dangerous consequences of such doctrines : — productive of the greatest intolerance. Avowed object to bring back the Presbyterian Church to the powers exercised by it in 1638. Prelacy of Church of England attacked by the members of the Committee as against the Word of God, and hurtful to vital godliness. Independence of Established Church in questions with civil tri bunals asserted. Patronage declared to be against the spiritual kingdom of our Saviour. Illustrations of these opinions given. Series of Tracts published by members of the Committee and other clergymen. Claim of the Established Church to decide what falls within the scope of her Independent Jurisdiction. — principles on which this claim is supported. — Decision of House of Lords declared to be an invasion of spiritual power of the Church. Dangerous consequences of these Doctrines to Civil and Religious Liberty. Disposition to address the Doctrine of the Divine Rights of the people, particularly to the lower classes. — Appeals made to them to support the Church in its opposition to the Law. Narrative of Proceedings of Church since 1832. Veto Law of 1834. Previous checks against abuse of Patronage. — most efficient. Veto abused in the course of the]^first year. Admonition by General Assembly in 1835 against abuses of the Veto, both by Presbyteries and people. The Veto a novelty in the Church. — so considered by Lord Moncreiff in 1832. Dr. Chalmers's motion in 1833. — in principle directly at variance with the Veto allowed in 1834. — different views taken in these two years of the " fun damental law" of the Church as to non intrusion. — motion of 1833 contained most important limitations on proposed power of people to reject. Great importance of the restraints proposed by Dr. Chalmers in 1833. — utterly inconsistent with the Doctrine of a right to re ject. — importance of these restraints advocated and explained by Lord Moncreiff in Assembly in 1833. Veto introduced in 1834 : — is absolute — proceeds on totally dif ferent principles from view taken in 1833 : — admits a right to reject, the exercise of which the Church cannot review on any grounds. — is final and peremptory. — Jurisdiction of Church excluded. Speech of Dr. Chalmers in 18.'^9. — directly opposed to his own motion in 1833. Resolution proposed by Dr. Cook in 1833. Acknowledgment by Dr. Chalmers that on the part of the Estab lished Church the Veto was incompe tent : — that it was carried through against his opinion and advice. •Statement of the points tried and decided as to illegality and im- competency of Veto. Lethendy Case : — Injunctions of Supreme Court deliberately violated by the Presbytery and by Commission of General Assembly, on the ground of in dependent authority of Church placing it beyond the control of the law. Motions in Assembly 1839- —of Dr. Cook. — of Dr. Chalmers. Remarks on latter. — obscurely worded. — enforces the Veto. — is in direct violation of the judgment of the House of Lords — in open defiance of law. — grounds on which motion is in its terms founded. Shew of submission in part to law in the motion, a very thin dis guise. — parts of the motion inconsistent with principle on which it proceeds. Consequences and evils directly produced by and contemplated in the motion. Expectation of Church to carry its objects by creating the evils of a separation of stipends from the pastoral office, or of parishes being vacant. Manner in which the Motion was followed up by the Church, by enforcing the Veto, and re-directing Presbyteries to allow it, exactly as if the judgment of the House of Lords had not beeen pronounced. Grounds on which opposition to law is advocated by members of the Committee. - — exhibited in a series of non-intrusion Tracts issued since the Assembly, by Dr. Chalmers and others. — dangerous character of these opinions. Judgment of Court of Session (following up decision of House of Lords) that the Presbytery of Auchter arder is bound to take Presentee on trials, in order to ascertain whether he is quali fied. Commission of General Assembly prohibit Presbytery of Auch terarder from acting on that Decree. — speech of Mr. Candllsh in Commission. —view taken of the Divine Right of the Christian peo ple. This state of things produced by adherence to a course which Dr. Chalmers himself originally thought was incompetent. — remarks upon his speech. — his motion inconsistent with declarations in his Speech. Attempt on the part of the Church to stifle opposition by the threat of Church censures and deprivation against Licentiates who might try ques tions in a court of law. Resolution of General Assembly May 1838, 1st, As to Independent Authority and Jurisdiction of Church. 2d, Against all Members of the Church who may dis pute the competency of proceedings in question. — pretensions asserted in this Motion. — manner in which it was attempted to be followed up against the Pursuer in the Auchterarder Case. — declaration by Dr. Chalmers of the difficulty he has had in restraining ecclesiastical usurpation and intolerance. — powers claimed by Dr. Chalmers for the Church, in the state to which his motion has brought matters. — Tract by Dr. Chalmers. Threat of enforcing submission to incompetent proceedings of Church, by the effect of Church censures, most alarming. — favourite engine of Churchmen to attain their ends. "o' The object of some leading Members of Committee is to alter the Constitution of Church as established at the Revolution. — that constitution declared by Mr. Candlish to he an imperfect settlement of Presbytery. — that the State interfered at that time beyond its le gitimate province. — that the system in 1638 is the true model of Presby tery. Remarks upon ' the principle of Non-Intrusion.' — same point which was decided by the House of Lords. — is taken by Church to mean an absolute right to reject a Presentee, on which Church Courts shall have no controul. Principle distinctly advocated that there can be no check or limi tation on the right to reject. Opinions of Sir Henry Moncreiff — very different. 8 ' Statement' by Committee of General Assembly. — Remarks, — upon their observations — and proposals. Admission by Committee that the Veto is not a satisfactory re gulation to large portion of its present supporters in the Church. Opinions entertained by the Committee and a great body of the advocates of these measures. — lead to popular election of ministers, or to the neces sity of a call by the people to a presentee. Committee approve of either of these principles rather than of Veto. — mean to reserve power to introduce the Call by autho rity of the Church. — proposal to leave regulation of whole matter to the Church. Proposal of Committee as to the general jurisdiction to be com mitted to Church in regard to Patronage. Real character of Dr. Chalmers's motion disguised in ' State ment' by Committee. — comparison by Dr. Chalmers between his motion and proceedings of Church Extension Com mittee, as to collections for the poor at Church do^rs. — his notion as to the manner in which the Church may with propriety defeat the decree of a Civil Court. Proceedings of Church greatly affected by a change in the com position of General Assembly. — this effected by the incompetent introduction into Church Courts, of the ministers of Cha pels of Ease. — these ministers declared by Resolution of General As sembly to be Parish Ministers. Erection of all Chapels of Ease into Parish Churches, with par ochial districts, by an Act of the Ge neral Assembly. — ministers of these Chapels introduced into Church Courts as parish ministers. — declared to have the same rights with parish ministers. — anomalous and unconstitutional character of this ])ro- cceding. 9 Interference thereby with established rights of the parishioners in legal parishes to the services of their minister. — the proper parochial minister is no longer the minister of large portions of the only parish known to the law. Important rights, affecting civil interests, attempted to be be stowed on these chapel ministers. Effects of this measure on the composition and character of the General Assembly and Church Courts. — immediate and marked. The existence of these parishes dependent on seat-rents, on the payment of debt,and altogether precarious. Admission by the General Assembly of a certain class of Seced- ers into the Church. Concessions by the General Assembly to them. — reservation granted to them of right to endeavour to alter the constitution of the Church in essential matters, on which the ground of separation remains in the opinion of these Seceders unchanged. These Seceding chapels erected at once by the act of Assembly into Parish Churches, with parochial dis tricts. — and their ministers declared to be parish ministers, and members of Church Courts. Declaration by this class of Seceders of their tenets. — explanation of these. They hold the constitution of the Church, as settled at the Revo lution, to be a sinful departure from the Presbytery of 1638. — that the League and Covenant for extirpating Episco pacy in England is of perpetual obliga tion on posterity. — that the acknowledgment, in the Treaty of Union, of Episcopacy in England, is contrary to the Word of God. — the doctrine oi ministerial liberty , — destructive of unity of doctrine, and the source of endless di visions in the Church. Great extent of concessions made by the General Assembly, in order to satisfy these Seceders on these points. 10 Anomaly as to these new parishes for the Seceders. —Jurisdiction of their kirk-sessions to be acknowledged by Presbyteries, beyond the bounds of the districts allotted to them. Necessary effect on the character and proceedings of the General Assembly, and other Church Courts, of the admission of these Seceding ministers. Incompetent proceedings as to the Parliamentary Churches esta blished by the 5th Geo. IV. c. 90. Objections to the Veto. Inconsistent with the authority and functions of the Church Courts, and with the right government of the Church. — explanation of this objection. — importance of it admitted by Dr. Chalmers. Striking admission by Dr. Chalmers, since the meeting of last Assembly, of the necessity of great re strictions on the Veto, and of restoring the controul and review by Church Courts, so that the right to reject shall not be ab solute. — this admission inconsistent with the views of the Com mittee, and with the whole theory of the Veto. — inconsistent with the doctrine of non-intrusion against the will of the people, as now explained by the Church. — inconsistent with the notion of a nght to reject in the people. Attempt by Dr. Chalmers to obviate the objection that the Veto is inconsistent with the authority and functions of Church Courts. — his answer is founded on a mistake as to the operation of the Veto. Theory of the measure is to submit the person presented to the judgment of the people. — the Church Courts devolve over that duty to the peo ple, without the power of review in case of rejection. Great difference between the most extensive view of the Jurisdic tion of the Church Courts in judging of 11 fitness of presentees, and a right on the part of the people to reject, — two things quite separate and distinct. Statement by Dr. Chalmers that until he read the opinions in the House of Lords, he was ready to give up the Veto. Misconception by Dr. Chalmers of the opinions of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Brougham. — the opinions did not go beyond the terms of the judg ment of the Court of Session. The point raised by the Veto law does not bear upon the extent of the jurisdiction of Presbyteries in judg ing of Presentees. — by the Veto law, Church has excluded its own power completely in the event of a rejection. The only point raised by the Church is a right on the part of the people to reject, for the exercise of which they are not to be accountable to the Church, and the reasons of which are beyond the province of the Church. Great extent of Jurisdiction which belongs to Presbyteries, in re gard to objections to Presentees. — in no degree affected by the judgment of the House of Lords. — extends to every objection whatever. Reasons stated by Dr. Chalmers for giving a right to the people to reject. — apply to the objections to presentees, of which the Presbytery are the proper and the best judges. Only consistent view on which Veto can rest, leads to a right of election by the people. Analogy drawn by Dr. Chalmers between the just perception of gospel truth, and the perception of natu ral beauty, by the peasantry of Scotland. — remarks on this. Right really claimed for the people is that they must be pleased. This inconsistent with the duty and functions of the Church in their charge of the people. Veto destroys the proper relation of the Hearers of the Word to the Church. 12 — proceeds on a false estimate of human nature. — is indefensible if this estimate is not sound and scrip tural. — tends to mislead the people as to their relation to their teachers. — to destroy the authority of their pastors. — to deceive the people as to their own love of the truth. — is destructive of a teachable and docile spirit among the people. Veto assumes the whole communicants in the country to be qua lified to judge of the merits of their in tended pastors. Causes which will mislead the people even if conscientious. — a judgment on hearing trial sermons a most unsafe and imperfect mode of judging. People declared by Dr. Chalmers in 1833, not to be qualified to elect. — Dr. Chalmers's statement of their ' gullability' on such subjects. Important opinion of Dr. M'Gill against the estimate of the qualifications of the mass of communi cants on which the Veto is founded. Injurious effect of Veto on views of the people as to pastoral office. — on views of Licentiates and candidates for livings. — testimony of advocates of Veto against it on this point. Ordeal of Veto repugnant to right views of the pastoral office. — decrease in numbers of divinity students. Dangerous opening afforded by Veto for the interference and in fluence of Presbyteries. — manner in which this interference will operate. Causes which prevent fair and conscientious judgment in the trial of the presentee. Projectors of the Veto proposed it in order to guard against po pular choice, and to protect patronage. Admissions in the Assembly 1836", both by the advocates of the Veto, and by the opponents of patronage, that it had worked ill. — in the opinion of latter did good only in concussing patrons in surrendering the nomination of clergymen to the people. — instances of this result before 1836. 13 Illustrations of the working of the Veto act after 1836. — power exerted by the people to compel patrons to o-ive them their choice. — instances mentioned. — of excitement, and canvassing, and strife, and conten tions in parishes. — of scenes which have occurred in particular parishes. Effects of the measure totally different from those which its pro jectors anticipated and desired. — ^'^eto now taken up by the opponents of patronage, because the measure leads to popular elec tion, and arms the people with the power to secure that result. Instances of the interference of Members of Presbyteries. — of sermons on occasions of vacancies. Injurious effects of Veto in cases in which dissents are short of majority. — destructive of peace of the country. Litigations in Church Courts as to disputed votes. Conclusions which follow from principle of the Veto. — people ought to have right to get rid of a minister, whom after trial they find to be ineffici ent, and incapable of edifying them. — quite easy to provide for this as to future cases, by a change in the law. No permanent connection or interest in the parish is required by the Veto law, to entitle people to decide. Divisions between different classes of society which will result from the measure. Dr. M'Gill's prediction has proved correct, that it enables one class to ' monopolize' the nomination of all the ministers in the Church. — effects of this. Dissatisfaction generally entertained at the change attempted by the Church upon the system acted on in Scotland. ^'^eto destructive of authority of the Church, and of satisfaction with the decisions of the Church Courts, when they reject the candidate favoured by the people. 14 Veto inconsistent with the principle of an Establishment, when majority of parish differ from Church Courts on points of doctrine. — with existence of Establishment when the majority of any district are opposed to the Establish ed Church. Report by the Committee of Assembly to the meeting of the Commission in August. —declaration by a member of the Committee of the only way in which alleged intentions of Go vernment could be acted upon. — ^remarks upon the report. — upon Lord Melbourne's contradiction to part of it, and upon the statement ascribed to him in that report. The importance of the Crown Patronage to the well-being of the Church of Scotland.- Conclusion — recapitulation. Importance of adhering to the policy on which every administra tion has acted since the Revolution, of preventing the Presbyterian clergy ac quiring , power and influence, or the Church going beyond the limits assigned to it by law. Attempts to induce one or other of the political parties in the country to take up the question of Veto. — neither party will gain by doing so. — nor will the clergy increase the respect for them by mixing in politics in return for aid as to the Veto. A LETTER THE LORD CHANCELLOR, My Lord, If it were probable that the questions relating to the Church of Scotland, to which I am about to solicit your Lordship's earr nest attention, would again come before you in your judicial capacity, I should certainly not address your Lordship on the subject. But the proceedings of the last General Assembly must soon force themselves on your consideration, as a member of the Government, and will de mand from the great constitutional adviser of the sovereign, very careful and anxious inquiry and deliberation. The Assembly have themselves resolved to press the objects, which a majority at present have in view, on the consideration of the Go vernment ; and have given authority to a Committee to attempt to arrange, if possible, with the aid of Government, a scheme respecting the settlement of ministers, — provided it upholds a general principle to which the Assembly have resolved to adhere, notwithstanding the re cent judgment of the House of Lords. That Committee have, it is understood, already put themselves into communication with the Government, and have urged upon some of its members the propriety of giving, in general terms, to the Church, by act of Parliament, the power to do that legally, which the As sembly have declared, in the most peremptory terms, that they in tend to do in all events and at all harards. 1 trust, that in the de liberations of any portion of the Government on so important a ques tion, recourse will be had to the judgment of your Lordship, espe cially as the different bearings of the question, as well as the propriety of acknowledging the claims which the Church at present advance, are points on which your Lordship is far better qualified, from your ac- A quaintance with the Auchterarder Case, to form an opinion than any other member of the Government. In May 1838, the General Assembly directed, that the decision of the Court of Session in the Auchterarder Case should be appealed to the House of Lords. That decision was affirmed, after full argument and anxious deliberation, your Lordship and Lord Brougham an nouncing, that you considered the points decided to be free from diffi culty, and delivering opinions which satisfied every one of the care and attention which had been bestowed on the consideration of the case. The judgment found in substance, that it was illegal and incompetent, on the part of the Church, to give to a majority of the communicants of a congregation an absolute right to reject, without cause assigned, the individual (though duly qualified) who might be presented to a parish by the lawful patron ; that is, to give them a veto on the no mination of clergymen : That no such right had ever been possessed by the people of Scotland, — and that the Church had never enjoyed or exercised the power of bestowing such privileges : That a rejection of a presentee by a Presbytery on any such ground, as a veto by the congregation, was a wrong, committed in violation of the rights of patrons, and a breach of the duty imposed on the Presbyteries of the Established Church by the acts of the legislature ; in other words, that in regard to one of the most important points in the institution and economy of an Established Church in its relation to the State, the Church Courts had disregarded and set at defiance the plain condi tions on which the Church of Scotland was adopted and settled by the State — had assailed private rights expressly protected by statutes, and had illegally and wrongfully refused to perform an important duty, im posed on their Church Courts, as a part of the institution, by the State, of an Established Church. Such was the deliberate judgment of the House of Lords, upon an appeal to its learning, wisdom, and authority, taken by the General Assembly itself. The judgment involved two points : First, that the rejection by the people, without a cause assigned and judged of by the Presbytery, was illegal ; and, secondly, that the Presbytery acted illegally, and violated the duty imposed upon them by statute, in refusing to lake the presen tee upon trials. This latter point it is very necessary to keep in view, for it has been thrown entirely out of view by the Church in their subsequent proceed ings. In a few weeks afterwards, the General Assembly of this year, on the motion of Dr. Chalmers, resolved to continue in the exercise of the power thus declared to be illegal and incompetent, — to persist in doing the wrong thus declared, and in refusing thereby to perform the duty which it has thus been found formed a condition of the establishment of the national Church. Such, as will immediately appear, has been the resolution of the General Assembly,— and it has been followed up by measures marking even more unequivocally the object of that general re solution, viz. instructions to Presbyteries to continue to enforce the Veto. That this is a most extraordinary and alarming position for an Es tablished Church to assume, is manifest to every one. That wrong should be openly done by a Church in the knowledge of the law, — that the statutes of the land should be deliberately and avowedly disregard ed, — and that a judgment of the most authoritative tribunal in the Kingdom should be immediately followed by a public resolution of the Church to persevere in the assumption and exercise of power so de clared to be incompetent, is a scandal hitherto unexampled in any Protestant country. Dr. Chalmers proposes,* with the aid of the Committee which was appointed in last Assembly to communicate with your Lordship's colleagues, to ' demonstrate of this sentence, that altogether it is ' founded in error' — that it is ' a misinterpretation' of the law ; and he is encouraged in the hope of success, by the ' ignorance,' the ' rash- ' ness,' ' and reckless disregard of the dearest principles of the Church' which can be pointed out in the opinions of your Lordship and Lord Brougham. A defence of the judgment of the House of Lords I do not propose to undertake. If it required confirmation, I should think that it had received it in the acknowledgment made by Dr. Chalmers, in the same speech, that the act of the Church in 1834, in passing the Veto, was ' A blunder' which he had attempted to "prevent. In reference to the objects I have in view in addressing this Letter to your Lordship, it is more important that I should in the outset state, that in a note to the revised report of his speech. Dr. Chalmers acknow ledges that the Veto law, after all, ought to receive several most im portant practical alterations — alterations which appear to be wholly opposed to the principle of the scheme. But the propriety of any limi tations of the Veto the Committee of Assembly have not recognised ; and the Assembly itself resolved, on the motion of Dr. Chalmers, to adhere to the principle that the people must have a right to reject a presentee, simply because they do not choose to have him. I shall, in the sequel, notice the remarkable acknowledgment now made by the author of the measure. It seems to import that the principle of the Veto is vicious — one which the Church ought not to admit. The ad mission I refer to is well calculated to make one receive with caution and distrust the proposal, either that Parliament shall at once sanction the Veto, or shall commit to the General Assembly the power to regulate the appointment of ministers in any way which that body may choose. Hitherto public attention has been directed chiefly — (in England, I believe, exclusively) — to the points more immediately put in issue by the Church in the Auchterarder Case. These points, however important, form a very small part of the subjects which arise for consideration out * Published Speech. of the principles and measures at present adopted by the General As sembly and its leading members. Proceedings have been in progress. for several years, which call for serious and grave consideration. I propose in this Letter, — 1 . To exhibit a view of the principles which are maintained on the part of the Church, in support of the position which they have chosen to assume, and of the measures which they have adopted ; and of the consequences of these principles to the peace and well-being of the com munity, and to civil and religious Liberty. 2. To give a narrative of these measures — to point out the pretensions and claims on which they are founded, and the extent of the usurpation of power and of opposition to civil authority which they exhibit. 3. To shew the real character and effects of the last proceedings of the General Assembly, which its supporters are at present studiously at tempting to disguise, lest the alarm which might otherwise be enter tained should frustrate the objects which the Committee have in view, — and the nature of the plan which the Committee have suggested. 4. To point out some causes, which have produced this sudden and extraordinary change in the claims and pretensions of the Church of Scotland, viz., in particular one great practical alteration which the Church has (incompetently) made in the constituent members of the Church Courts. 5. To exhibit some of the more important objections to the proposed changes, which the Church mean to press on the attention of the Govern ment, and some of the probable results of these changes, both on na tional character — on the usefulness of the Established Church — and on the general interests of religion. That many who have joined in the recent proceedings of the Church, really do not understand the position in which they have placed them selves I believe to be true : — and I have no doubt that the delusions incident to a popular body, (meeting rarely, and composed in a great part of ministers, few of whom are constantly elected to it), and the vague notions of importance and consequence which the assertion of Spiritual independence seems to bestow, misled others into the ap proval of measures, the instant adoption of which (within a few days after the judgment of the House of Lords) was pressed upon them with the greatest vehemence, as necessary to preserve the independence and rights of the Church. The Assembly, while it resolved to enforce the Veto, further ap pointed a Committee to endeavour to obtain an alteration of the law, which they first resolved to disregard, and to require the sanction of the legislature to this power of congregations to reject at pleasure the per sons, whom patrons present to livings, before they have even been taken on trials by the Church — or even to the grant of some more direct and exclusive power to the people in the election and nomination of ministers. These objects the Committee are directed to urge, and they are now engaged, as your Lordship is probably aware, in the attempt to effect •their objects. The importance of these proposed changes on the state of society un der any Established Church cannot be denied. When the legislature, in the reign of Queen Anne, after the experience of twenty years, found that it was necessary for the peace and quiet of Scotland to restore the rights of patronage, which had been, by the Scotch statute 1690, transferred generally to the proprietors and elders (and to these only) in parishes, the statute (10 Anne, c. 12) declares, that 'that way ' of calling ministers has proved inconvenient, and has occasioned great ' heats and divisions among those who, by the aforesaid act, were en- ' titled and authorised to call ministers.' Of the truth of this declaration ample proof, if necessary, could be given, in addition to the recorded opinion of the legislature. That a more popular system in the nomination and choice of ministers of pa rishes, or a regular and organized appeal to the people for approval or rejection, will lead in the present day to greater divisions, more dissen sions and heats, and to effects more permanently injurious, both to the peace and unity of the Church, and to the interests of religion, no dis passionate man can doubt. And the anxiety is natural, that the se» rious attention of your Lordship should be called to the subject, before any progress is made in the negotiations which the Committee of the General Assembly are to open with the government of the country for such important constitutional changes. The changes contemplated cannot be confined to Scotland. The con sideration of these cannot be regarded merely as a Scotch question, even if their importance to society in Scotland did not demand the most anxious consideration. It is necessary and expedient 'for the Christian good of the people,'* and in order that the ministrations of a clergyman may be edifying and useful to his parishioners, and may contribute to their eternal sal vation, that they shall previously be satisfied, upon a trial given to them, with his style of preaching, and with his ministerial gifts ; — if there is no security that he can be useful, unless he is previously accept able to the people of the parish in which he is to be placed, — if their welfare requires that he shall be submitted to their approval, otherwise the great work in which he is to be engaged will probably miscarry, so far as his agency is concerned; if, on the principles of a reformed Christian church, it is essentially necessary that no minister shall be placed in a parish against whom the majority of the congregation or communicants are prepared to give a veto, (though without reasons as signed), and if their unwillingness to be placed under his scriptural super intendence as their pastor is, on religious principles, a paramount ground for rejecting him, and for giving them the right to reject him, whatever * Dr. Chalmers. ¦ opinion the Church authorities might form, if permitted, of the indivi dual, or may actually entertain on the best knowledge, — if all these matters are admitted and recognised, — These considerations are not ap plicable to Scotland alone. They apply equally to England : Nay, they apply more forcibly to England than they can do to a country in which the Church is of more popular constitution, and in which the checks on the nomination of ministers are vested in Church Courts, having them selves, in the first instance, no Church patronage, and exercising a far greater power in the trial of qualifications than the bishops in England can do. The law of patronage and the rights of patronage do not stand on a stronger footing in England. I doubt if they have as stringent and as express statutory protections as in Scotland. If an act of Parliament can alter the state of things in Scotland, a similar statute can as easily alter the state of things in England. The ground for doing so is equally paramount in both countries. The measure is as easy in one country as in the other. There can be no difficulty in England in keep ing a Roll of the names of communicants : There can be no difficulty in the communicants, after the presentee has preached before them, de claring their dissent to have that person. No — is a word easily said by a body of people, learned or illiterate. Dissent is easily ascertained. Your machinery in England makes the operation simple and easy. The archdeacon of the district has merely to take the roll and the peo ple to come forward and say — we are not pleased. You have office bearers enough in your Church for that simple procedure. No decision or judgment of any court is necessary. The regularity of the Roll it is easy to provide for, and you may either exclude questions as to the names once entered on it; you have regular ChurchCourts and Bishops, either of which may surely decide such simple matters. A statute with three clauses will at once establish the system in England. There is not one single difficulty in the government of your church to exclude the change. Your establishment affords, indeed, better means of doing so than ours. The vote of Cromwell's celebrated Convention on the 17th November 1653, that the right of presentation to benefices should be taken away, and the people in the several parishes be authorised at once to choose their own instructors, was neither a more difficult nor a more sweeping change to adopt, — although originating in the very same views, — than that which should give, under the existing economy, a right to reject the presentee if not acceptable. If a statute is at once to subject the rights and law of patronage in Scotland, by a short and sweeping enactment, to this condition, a statute may as easily do it in England. The reasons for it are the same. The salvation of men in Scotland cannot require a statute which is unneces sary for their fellow-subjects in England. The latter are not likely long, in the present day, to think, that what was given on such grounds to their fellow-subjects in Scotland, would be unsuitable or improper for them, under a richer hierarchy, — with a clergy, many of whom are even more removed above them in point of station and rank, — and with the same interest to secure ministers acceptable to themselves. If, again, patronage, without at least this right of rejection by the people, is inconsistent with ' the rights of a Christian people in the ' Church of God ;'* — if it is an infringement on the privileges which, though trampled upon by the Church of Rome, had ever been possess ed by the Christian Church in earlier and purer times, privileges flowing from and forming ' part of the liberty' which the Author of our religion bestowed on His people as members of the Church on earth; — if patron age, or patronage without an absolute veto by the people, is on these grounds indefensible, and a statute must be passed to secure to Scotch men, as members of the visible Church, ' the Christian privileges' which law has denied to them, in opposition to the principles of Christian faith, and to the first doctrine of any reformed Church — such law must rest on a foundation as unstable and unsound in England. The rights of En glishmen in the Christian Church must be the same as those of Scotch men. The infringment on their Christian privileges by patronage, or by patronage unrestricted by the exercise of a veto or dissent of the congregation, must be the same. The evil is as clamant — the remedy equally called for. Whether the demand for the remedy now exists in England, makes in principle no difference, and in fact such difference will soon cease. If the people in England do not know what is necessary for their spiritual welfare, or to what extent their Christian privileges, as members of the Church on earth, have been infringed, their spiri tual interests do not the less require the remedy which is to ren der the ministration of the ministers of the Gospel blessed to their edification : — Nor is the violation of their Christian rights the more defensible, that its unscriptural character has been concealed from the people. The vice in the constitution of the Church is only the greater, if the people have been so blinded, as in the time of popery. Whether the people in England now demand the restoration of their Christian privileges or not, the duty of restoring them rests on the same basis in England aS in Scotland. Rely upon it, however, the demand will soon be made on the same practical grounds, if recognised as applifable to Scotland. And it wiU be difficult to maintain, that the simple principles claimed by the poorer and more popular Church of Scotland, as part of the system of a gospel ministry instituted by its Divine author, should not be in troduced in order to give efficacy and grace to the ministrations of a Church in which the institutions themselves, and the system of pa tronage, seem only the more to require that the people shall be al lowed to reject the ministers from whom they think that edifica tion cannot be derived. That much of the patronage in England be longs to the Church itself, would only tend to strengthen the arguments for the change. The questions which the Committee of the General Assembly intend * Mr. Candlish. 10 to press on the consideration of the Government, are thus of national interest and importance, and the consequences of any concession to the demands now preferred may be far more extensive than the most ex perienced and sagacious statesman can foresee. To deal with the question as a, provincial matter, or as affecting only the Church of Scotland, and of little moment to the general interests of society in Britain, will be a lamentable mistake in every view of the subject, and eminently absurd in this respect ; viz. that the change proposed for Scotland is one which will very soon be demanded for England, and will open up a new source of agitation and ferment in society in that part of the kingdom. I am persuaded that it is not on any such narrow views that your Lordship will be disposed to deal with the matters which a demand to make the veto legal opens up. The whole character of your opinion in the Auchterarder Case entitles us in Scotland to expect that matters of such vast moment will be dispassionately considered by your Lordship, with reference to the real interests of society and of religion, and with out regard to the temptations of partial and temporary support from one section of the clergy, which, — we are not very decorously told, — are to be held out to the Government by presbyterian ministers, as an induce ment to comply with the views they are now advocating. Any encouragement in the meantime to the views recently put forth on the part of the Church might also produce irreparable mischief, by promoting the Scheme of encroachment on existing laws, and of Inde pendent Jurisdiction on the part of the Church, which has been unequi vocally displayed. While firmness and decision on the part of the Go vernment, with the general feeling of dissatisfaction which the proceed ings of the Church have created in Scotland, will soon correct the un natural state of things, to which the precipitation of the clergy has given rise, and the steady administration of the law produce its invariable effect in the restoration of regularity and order, yet excitement for some time on the part of the clergy we must be prepared to expect. A sort of feverish agitation has lately been exhibited on the part of many of the mi nisters of theChurch,altogetherunknown informer times, and littlelikely to maintain the quiet, useful, laborious character of the parochial clergy of Scotland. That the spirit of the present times is working unfavour ably even among them, producing a restless desire for change, and a ten dency to sacrifice more important interests to the acquisition of popu larity and of more extended influence ; and that to this cause, the re cent attempts to magnify the general estimate of the authority and independence of the Church, are mainly to be referred, are conclusions at which, whatever the clergy may think, the laity in Scotland are very generally arriving. The desire for change, and the' love of power, now prevalent among them, was manifested in a remarkable manner in the attempt to introduce and establish this Veto on the nomination of presentees. Your Lord ship had complete evidence before you that the measure had no sanc tion in any corresponding regulation during any period of the history 11 of the Church; and it was not pretended that such a regulation as a veto was even heard of before. It was avowedly a new thing, introduced and invented to give efficacy, it was said, to some abstract principle, and was first devised during that general agitation in the minds of men, which the mighty changes by the reform bill inevitably for the time produced. Yet in the ferment of that period of excitement the measure was in troduced ; and the clergy have now resorted to the doctrine of the Inde pendent Power of the Church, in order to defend the illegal usurpation. Once embarked in the contest for power, once committed to change and revolution in the Church, the love of distinction as popular declaimers, as champions of the Church, stimulates many, unconsciously to them selves, to enter the arena, which originally had no attractions for them ; and the stimulus of popular assemblies both excites and keeps alive the same spirit in which the first encroachment on the law and rights of parties originfited. For some time, therefore, we may expect that, among the clergy, and some who have now united with them, somewhat of the same zeal may continue to operate. But the increasing disapprobation of the country, most strongly evinced in every quarter, will at no long period, I believe, deprive the advocates of these measures of the hope, that the support throughout the country which they court, is to accompany them in this struggle : — and the spirit of agitation will gradually subside, and the energies of the clergy be directed to more legitimate objects, as they discover that this is a vain expectation. In every speech at present this hope is conspicuous ; in every sentence the desire to agitate for popular support is apparent. ' We » shall rally our countrymen once more, now that the old banner is * again (!) broadly displayed,' is the exclamation and the hope with which one of the leading speakers in the Assembly supported the re solution to which I allude.* But the comparison is lamentable, be tween the great and patriotic and enthusiastic struggles of the pres byters of old, fighting for their faith and their system of worship, against the encroachments of popery and the persecutions of a tyranni cal court and of an insolent and unprincipled hierarchy, and the at tempt, in the present peaceable age, on the part of the Established Church Courts of the country, to assume power inconsistent with the statutes which create them, and to perpetrate deliberate wrong under the disguise of asserting ' the privileges of the Christian people,' or ' the rightful power of the Church of Christ.'f That the intentiori to rouse the country to take part in such an attempt will fail, it requires little knowledge of the present times to predict; and it should seem that the eager desire to urge through a conclusive and fatal measure within a few weeks, or even days, after the decision of theHouse of Lords, betrayed some consciousness that strength was not to be gained by a more deliberate and cautious expression of the opinions even of the Church, much less of the people of Scotland. The people know well the difference between * Mr. Candlish. t Ibid. 12 the years 1560, 1592, or 1638 and 1839, and how vain is the attempl^:; to get up the shew of the mighty struggle of the former period by deJi bates in the present day. An immense proportion of the members of the Establishment view, with equal surprise and dissatisfaction, the scheme of playing over again in the present day the part of the Pres byters of 1638, and look with somewhat of the feeling of ridicule, that attaches to a scenic parody of the mighty facts of history, to the attempt to revive the language and pretensions of that age. To all reflecting minds the Auchterarder Case, and the measures which gave rise to it, involved far more important matters than either the civil rights at issue or the change in the mode of settling clergy men, important as that point is in any religious establishment. No one considering steadily the principles promulgated in the Church, could fail to discover in them several alarming sources of disturbance and confusion to the social system, from which the interests of religion, the peace of the country, and the cause of civil and religious liberty, may most seriously suffer. In requesting your attention to the subjects to be noticed in this Letter, and in pointing out the very alarming views which have been recently broached on the part of the Church and its advocates, it is right that I should inform your Lordship that this Letter contains the opinions — not of an enemy to, but — of a member of the Church of Scotland — zealously attached to Presbytery, as settled in the Church of Scotland — preferring its form of worship (after ample experience of the English service, both in youth and in riper years) as more simple, edifying, and impressive, and better adapted to the varied wants and feelings of the human mind : — preferring its Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as in his opinion sounder expositions of divine truth : — be lieving that the result of her system and ritual of worship is hot only to secure more good effects from public prayer, but still more to give, on the whole, much greater prominence and importance to the Preach ing of the Word, and thereby to direct the energies of the clergy more steadily to the greatest and most effectual means of public instruc tion which the ordinances of a gospel ministry can afford : — persuaded that the discipline and government of the Church of Scotland are, on the whole, better fitted than Episcopacy to guard the purity of com munion, and to enforce constant attention to duty on the part of the ministers of the Church ; and attached to the Church of Scotland by every feeling which hallows and endears the institutions of a national church to the mind — by long continued and constant resort to her or dinances — and by the benefits which have been received from the minis trations, public and private, of a valued and beloved Pastor. That opposition, plain and unreserved, to the extravagant pre tensions and claims which certain parties in the Church are now urging, and which even the General Assembly has sanctioned, will be considered as unnatural enmity on the part of a member of the Church, has been already evinced, in the denunciations which have been thrown out against all who do not support these pretensions, as 13 not possessing the feelings of patriotic Scotchmen. I shall be content to bear any such charge with great indifference, when I find that, in the revised and published Report of the Speech of one of the members of Assembly, my esteemed pastor, Dr. Muir, is charged with Popery in his views, because he contended that the Church Courts could not surrender to the people the paramount right and duty, (which he held to be part both of their spiritual superintendence over their hearers, as well as of their ecclesiastical constitution,) — to decide themselves on the qualifications and fitness of presentees; Without regard, however, to the offence which plain and unreserved opposition may give, and from a most earnest wish to aid, if possible, in preventing the mischief to religion which the present pretensions of many churchmen are calculated to produce, I have now to point out to your Lordship some of the notions leading directly to disturbance and disorder in the social system, which have been promulgated in the course of the discussions in the Church during the last few years. I allude, J?rsi, to the doctrine of Divine right, which is put forth as the ground of demanding both certain arrangements in the constitu tion of the Church, and Independent Jurisdiction and authority for the Established Church, as given to the Church by its Spiritual Head — a doctrine which has been the source in every age of the greatest intoler ance, and the constant pretext for ecclesiastical usurpation. 2d, To the claim of the Established Church to decide for herself what is within the sphere and scope of her Jurisdiction in relation to the State ; and, 3d, To the effects on national character which some of the principles now advo cated on the part of the Church will inevitably produce. I. In the first place, the doctrine has been broached and revived, that ' the rights of the Christian people,'' as 'members of the Church of Christ^ require either the abolition of patronage, or a right of absolute Veto on the part of the people on the nomination of presentees. This is urged as a point of Christian doctrine. We are told of the ' standing which the ' Christian people have in the settlement of their pastors,' as an article of religious belief, and as a right (somehow) connected with the privileges and blessings purchased and procured for the members of the Church by our divine Redeemer. It is difficult, in modern times, to convey in other words than those which are employed, (unwilling as one is to introduce expressions which cannot be commented upon without touching on subjects of the most sacred nature,) any correct notion of the extraordinary views on this subject brought forward by the highest Church authorities who advocate the proposed changes. The liber ties, the privileges, the immunities, the rights of the Christian people, (for all these expressions are used indiscriminately) in regard to the settle ment of ministers, are now talked of and treated as part of the rights ' of ' the people in the Church of Christ ;'* as part of ' the privileges of that ' liberty with which Christ has made his people free;'* as part of the * Mr. Candlish— published Speech, Assembly, May 1839- 14 spiritual blessings and Christian privileges which our Saviour has secured and promised to his Church, and as connected with the hopes and bound up with the promises of Redemption. Thus, Mr. Candlish, in winding up his speech* in support of Dr. Chalmers's motion to disregard the judgment of the House of Lords, and after a variety of remarks maintaining the right of rejection to be among ' the privileges of that liberty with which Christ has made his ' people free,' at last unequivocally explains the nature of the ground now taken on the part of the Presbyterian clergy, in the following sentence, (continuing the allusion to the banner already quoted) :— ' The banner on which we find clearly and fully inscribed, Caesar's crown ' indeed, but along with it, and not less clearly or less fully, Christ's ' CROWN, — and underneath Christ's crown, and shielded by it, the pur- ' chased liberties of his redeemed people.'' That these views point merely to the exercise of a Veto (a thing wholly new) cannot be pre tended. If they have any meaning, they decidedly strike against pa tronage, and lead to the 'divine right of the people' to elect their ministers. But whatever may be the practical measure to be deduced from these doctrines, the important topic for reflection is, the ground which the Church puts forth as the foundation of the proposed changes, to whatever extent they are to be carried I have taken the words of one of the latest speeches on the subject, rather than innumerable declara tions in earlier discussions on the Veto, both because time ought to lead to greater precision, — as it often does, at all events, to more freedom — in the expression of opinions ; and because these are the deliberate words of an accomplished minister in the metropolis of Scotland, carefully re vised by himself ; the published sentiments of one of the most intelli gent and authoritative •}¦ of the clergy supporting Dr. Chalmers's mo tion, and of the Committee named to give it effect. * Revised Speeches, p. 45. ¦f The Confession of Faith contains no warrant for such views of Christian liberty. The 20th chapter explains ' Christian liberty and ' liberty of conscience,' i. e. ' the liberty which Christ purchased for be- ' lievers under the gospel,' (§ 1,) in the manner in which every re formed church understands the term. And as if to prevent such results as that of the church, on any pretence, claiming, as a part of Christian privileges, any immunities which are not spiritual blessings, the last section (§ 4,) declares, — and let it be remembered that this is the Con fession of Faith which Parliament adopted at the request of the Church, and which has the force of law, — ' And because the powers which God ' hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not ' intended by God to destroy, but materially to uphold and preserve ' one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose ' any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ' ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.' The Larger Catechism, in explaining ' the special privileges of the 15 The propagation of such notions among the people of Scotland, by members of the Established Church, might in other times have created great ferment, and caused much mischief. They seem to be precisely the opinions which the late Sir Henry Moncreiff condemns in alluding to Ebenezer Ersklne,* as tending 'to inflame the minds of the people by his doctrine on the authority of Scripture, and by asserting, what was in- ' capable of proof, that he was contending for the original laws of Chris- « tianity, as well as the ancient law of the Scottish Church.' If they do not produce the same mischief in the present day, it will be mainly owing to the deep hold which sounder notions have obtained of the minds of the people of Scotland, in consequence of the enlightened and admirable views on questions of ecclesiastical polity, which, till lately, the clergy of the Church of Scotland, of all parties and sections, have for nearly a century been inculcating. But the real and lasting mis chief arising from this claim of Divine Origin for any particular opin ions respecting the arrangements of Church Polity, lies in the Spirit of Intolerance which such exaggeration necessarily generates. When the fundamental doctrines of the gospel are mixed up with opinions respecting the nomination to benefices : — When the ministers of the Church proclaim the right of Veto, or of Election, to be part of the 'purchased liberties of the redeemed people of Christ;' who does not see in this the same spirit of intolerance which, in other ages, has even claimed the privilege of absolution or indulgence as part of the im munities of the people, and the same desire to subjugate and controul opinions on all matters of ecclesiastical polity, by invoking the sanctity of divine truth ? The language which one applies to the veto, another applies to patronage in general as utterly unscriptural, and in all its shapes an invasion of the rights of the Christian people, — and ano ther, with equal energy, appeals to Scripture as proving that a Call from the people will alone bestow the unction and grace, without which no bond can exist between pastor and people. Indeed, it seems to be absurd to limit the views, which are main tained in this speech of Mr. Candlish, and which pervade all the speeches on the subject in the last and recent Assemblies, to a claim for a Veto on the part of the people. Such a thing as a Veto is a mere novelty. Election of the ministers is the claim which has always been advocated on the same terms and on the same grounds of divine right. The doc trine above quoted is not new. It was started in Scotland, by the au thors of the Secession, about 1730, — though wholly unknown, as Sir Henry Moncreiff explains, in the earlier history of the Church, when the election was claimed by the Presbytery, the people being only al lowed to state proper objections which might be known to them. It is in vain to limit this doctrine of the divine right of the people to a claim for a Veto, and to hold it as not pointed equally, and in princi- ' visible church,' gives the same view of the privileges of members of that church. * Constitution of the Church., Edinburgh, 1833, pp. 57, 58. 16 pie, against patronage. I suppose Mr. Candlish would disclaim any such limitation ; and most of the leading advocates of Dr. Chalmers's motion, and of the members of his Committee, are active members of the Anti-Patronage Society, and avowedly and decidedly opposed on principle to any system of patronage. At a meeting in Edinburgh held immediately after the Assembly, to support the recent motion of Dr. Chalmers, and the exertions of his Committee, by presenting petitions on the subject, and attended by most of the Edinburgh clergy who favour the proposed changes, the most unlimited hostility to Patronage was openly proclaimed without any dissent from any of the clergymen present. Mr. Candlish and others cannot adopt the very language and opinions of the original assertors of the divine right of the people, and mean to exclude from among the privileges belonging to the Christian people the right of election, or to admit the compatibility of patronage with these privileges, in direct opposition to the views of those whose lan guage they borrow. If they did, bow absurd would be the result, to see in two parallel columns the very same language and expressions used for the Veto by the one set, admitting patronage in itself to be right and proper ; and by their predecessors, against any system of pa tronage, and in support of the divine right of popular election, to which the doctrine necessarily leads. In that calm and admirable review of the parties in the Church of Scotland, and the progress of their various opinions and errors, which Sir H. Moncreiff left for the instruction and warning of his brethren in the church, of which he was so distinguished an ornament, he has a very important passage as to the rise and origin, as well as the charac ter and effects of this singular opinion of the divine right of the people. (Constitution, p. 39.)* ' There is another important fact which ought to be mentioned here, ' though it will be afterwards again adverted to. There does not ' appear, during the whole interval from 1691 to 1712, the least ' vestige of a doctrine so much contended for at a later period, which ' asserted a divine right in the people, individually or collectively, to ' elect the parish ministers. In all the questions before the General ' Assemblies, with regard to the settlement of parishes, there is no ' claim to this effect either asserted or pretended ; nor does there ap- ' pear to have been in any single instance, an opposition to the execu- ' tion of the act 1690, on any principle of this kind. Whatever may ' have been the disadvantages of the act 1712, they did not originate ' in its contradiction to any supposed claim of divine right, which, at ' the time of this enactment, though there might be private opinions of ' individuals in its favour, was neither conceded nor avowedly asserted- * Brief Account of the Constitution of the Established Church of Scotland, originally published in an Appendix to a life of Dr. Erskine, by the Rev. Sir H. Moncreiff Welwood, Bart., D.D., and republished 1833. Whittaker and Co., and James Ridgway, London. 17 « It is well known how keenly this doctrine was brought forward at « a later period, and how much more mischief it produced than any ' principle involved in it would have naturally led dispassionate men ' to anticipate.' Again, — adverting to an Act of Assembly in 1730, respecting the set tlement of ministers in cases where the presentation fell to Presbyteries jure devoluto, or where the patron did not choose to present, — he says, (p. 53,) ' No proceeding of the General Assembly has ever been fol- ' lowed by consequences which have more generally or permanently ' affected the state of the country. It was most strenuously opposed ' at the time by those who were then considered as the popular party ' in the church. By many of them, because the Act had not been ' previously transmitted to Presbyteries in the form of an overture, in ' terms of the Barrier Act ; and by a considerable number besides, of ' those who asserted the divine right of the people In the election of ' ministers, and who would have been as hostile to the Act of Parlia- ' ment of 1690 as they were to this enactment of the Assembly. ' The first class had constitutional grounds to plead for their opposl- ' tion ; while the latter asserted the right of conscience, and the rights ' of the people, which they professed to derive from the authority of ' Christ. ' The state of the controversy was such, that it might have been ' naturally expected, after the division in the Assembly, to produce a ' very considerable degree of irritation in the country ; and of this clr- ' cumstance the keenest of the popular demagogues among the clergy ' did not fail immediately to avail themselves. ' The Assembly was no sooner dissolved than Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, ' minister of Stirling, began to sound the alarm against the enactment, ' as a great encroachment on the rights of the people, on the constitu- ' tion of the Church, and (what was much more serious) on the laws ' and authority of Christ. On the 4th of June 1732, a few days after ' the date of the Act, he preached a sermon in the church of Stirling, ' full of inflammatory declamation ; In which, after laying down, in ' broad and unqualified terms, the divine right of the people at large to ' elect their own pastors, he roundly asserted, " That those professed " Presbvterians who thrust men upon congregations without, and con- " trary to the free choice their great king had allowed them, were " guilty of an attempt to jostle Christ out of his government, and to " take it on their own shoulders." Again, '. Nor will it be easy to show that the doctrine asserted by « Mr. Erskine in his two sermons was ever held or practised by the ' church, at any period since the Revolution ; or that it can ever ' be reconciled to the language of the General Assemblies at any time ' before.* * The First Book of Discipline had indeed placed the election of : pastors in the people at large. But when the -pointsnot sufficiently • digested there were corrected and „ new-modelled in the Second Book 18 ' Ebenezer Erskine certainly went much farther than he was war- ' ranted to do by the doctrine and practice of the church at any period ' since the Reformation. And though he inflamed the minds of the ' people, by placing his doctrine on the authority of Scripture, and by ' asserting what was incapable of proof — that he was contending for ' the original laws of Christianity, as well as for the ancient law of the ' Scottish Church — it may be fairly admitted notwithstanding, that ' he honestly affirmed what he had brought himself to beheve ; even ' while the unreasonable intemperance and pertinacity with which he ' maintained it can scarcely be denied. ' His doctrines, indeed, derived their chief importance , from the ' keenness with which they were combated in the church courts ; and ' from the violence of those who became his opponents or prosecutors. ' They who read his two sermons in the present times, will not think ' that they were in any respect worthy of the attention which was given ' to them ; and will scarely find it possible to doubt, that, with all ' the inflammable matter which they contain, had they been disregard- ' ed by the Church Courts, and never brought into question, their ' defects, in argument and substance, would soon have consigned them ' to oblivion.' The mischief which Sir H. Moncreiff here mentions as caused for a time by the doctrine of the divine rights of the Christian people, it is easy to account for. The determination of questions of Church Polity by reference to the immunities and rights which the blood of Christ has purchased for his people, and by appeals to the articles of faith essential to salvation, of course stamps each opinion, in the eyes of its sincere or unthinking professors, with the sanctity and the authority of divine truth. And still more, the assertion and claim of rights for the members of the Church, on the ground that such rights have been bestowed upon them by our Saviour, as part of the benefits of his atonement, tends to make them regard, as invasions of Christian privileges, any ecclesiastical ar rangements which deny to them these rights. Any such schemes or ar rangements of church polity are viewed as inconsistent with the princi ples of Christian faith, and, of course, utterly unfit to accomplish the pur poses of a religious establishment, because repugnant to the doctrines on which alone any such establishment can be founded. Hence any other scheme Is viewed with the abhorrence which leads at once to intolerance. ' of Discipline, the election of pastors is declared to be, " by the judg- " ment of the eldership, (that is, of the Presbytery) and the consent of " the congregation," this language signifying, according to all the laws ' and usages which followed, the right of the people either to give their ' CONSENT, or to state and substantiate their objections, of which the ' Presbytery were to judge. The people were not the electors, even by ' this rule ; and though it gave more power to the Presbyteries than ' was ever afterwards conceded to them, it gave the people exactly the ' same place which the language of the Church, both in early and later ' times, uniformly assigned to them.'' 19 Thus, in 1643, the Presbyterians of Scotland, after having achiev ed their own independence and freedom from the approaches of Popery under the pretext of Episcopacy, carried away by the same exaltation of opinions, and the same mistaken and vague appeals to the records of religious faith on subjects of ecclesiastical polity, proceeded to declare Presbytery to be the only form of church government warranted by the word of God, and attempted to establish it in the sister kingdom. Thus, within the last few months, in the metropolis of Scotland, in a meeting called to commemorate the principles and assert the powers of the Church, as exercised in 1 638 and subsequent years, many of the leading supporters of Dr. Chalmers's recent motion loudly proclaimed the same doctrine, and revived the pretensions and claims for the ex clusive authority of the Presbyterian Church, which, if imbibed by the people, or acted upon, might separate the religious community of the two kingdoms, in a manner fatal to the interests of religion. Mr. Cand lish (the leading speaker in support of Dr. Chalmers's motion in the Assembly) is found supporting at that meeting a resolution which de clared ' Presbytery alone to rest on the authority of Scripture.' Mr. Candlish declared, as one great object of his speech, ' I have a quar- ' rel with Episcopacy altogether;' and in support of that quarrel, doubt less, he went as far as I presume any one at the struggle for the aboli tion of Episcopacy could well go. He regretted that he had not time ' to ' bring the Word of God to prove that Presbytery alone has its founda- ' tion there,' and that the defence of Episcopacy leads necessarily to the authority of a Pope. And as such views of the divine prescription of any one form of church government always lead to the most exalted claims for the power of that Church, which is held to be prescribed and set forth in Scripture for the Church upon earth, Mr. Candlish deplored the very imperfect and inadequate and feeble establishment of Presby tery in Scotland at the time of the Revolution, as but a mutilated and defective image of the more vigorous and Scriptural system which had been put forth in Bible purity and freshness and efficiency, in 1638. He claimed for the Church of Scotland even now, the constitution or schemes of 1638, ' which never had altogether fair play,'* declaring that the Presbyterian form is best fitted to ' secure and improve the out- ' pouring of the Spirit of God,' and expressing his belief that the ' revival of sound doctrines, and spiritual and evangelical religion in ' England,' will lead, in that country, as a necessary fruit of genuine faith, ' if not to Presbyterianism, at least to as good a substitute for it ' as the laws of Episcopacy will permit ;' and again, ' If this work of ' revival goes on, they (the clergy of England) must unite together in « demanding that their voice shall be fully heard, not merely in the • way of humble petitions, but In the way of free and equal discussion « and debate in some assemblies, sitting under the presidentship, it may * This remarkable passage will be afterwards quoted. See Report of Meeting in Edinburgh to commemorate the Assembly 1638, on De cember 20, 1838. 20 « be, of their bishop or archbishop, yet with freedom to state their own ' views, and to consult together on the glory of God and the good of ' souls. I heartily wish. Sir, that such a time may arrive, and whe- « ther they call it Presbyterianism or not, I shall rejoice to see such ' efficient instruments of a new life put into the hands of the ministers * of the sister land,' — as If the great and main objects by which the glory of God and the eternal welfare of man will be promoted, could not be prosecuted effectually, and with the full benefit and efficacy of divine blessing, unless you have in England the contentions and parties of popular assemblies in your church. When such doctrines are incul cated by the ministers even of the metropolis of Scotland, it cannot be surprising that motions for the expulsion of the bishops from theHouse of Lords have found, in some parts of Scotland, a degree of favour which the state of political opinions alone in these places clearly did not ac count for. At the same meeting another clergyman in Edinburgh, — a very active supporter of the recent measures, — Mr. Cuninghame, is found moving and supporting a resolution to the following purport : — ' My motion ' brings us back in some degree to the Independence of the Church ; not, ' however, to the question of the Church's independence In the abstract, ' but to the connexion that ought to subsist between the civil and ecclesi- ' astical authorities, and to the relations which ought to be formed be- ' tween them. It Is to this effect : — " That these great men who were in- " strumental in effecting the second Reformation * of the Church of Scot- " land, held sound Scriptural views in regard to the proper relation of " the civil and ecclesiastical authorities ; that they acted upon these prin^ " ciples, and embodied them in their public standards; and that not with- " standing the contradictory objections by which, in different ages, they " have been assailed, we still regard them as founded upon the sacred " Scriptures, and pointing the true path of the ChurcVs duty.'''''' This resolution, advocated by one of the most active and leading supporters of the proposed changes, declares, without disguise, that their object -is to carry us back to the power and authority of the Church at the period in question, and to obtain practically for the Church of Scotland, jurisdiction and power which, at the re-establishment of Presbytery at the Revolution, was not conceded to it. The prosecution of this ob ject, it seems, is ' the Church''s duty ' at the present time, and most faithfully are many of its most active members prosecuting the object. And after advocating this resolution at some length, Mr. Cuning hame says, ' You will also be led to regard it as aproof of God's peculiar 'favour to the Church, that the last Assembly of 18H8, when the spiritual ' independence of the Church was only threatened, and not actually in- ' fringed, were led in the true spirit of their forefathers, to make a bold ' and explicit declaration of their principles, and of their determination to ' adhere to them. Arfd if the time should ever come, as it probably may, ' when we shall be called upon to contend, as in the days of old, for * That is, In 1638. 21 • Christ's sole right to govern his house, the knowledge of these principles, ' and the conviction that they rest on Scriptural authority, will con- ' strain you, and will constrain the people of Scotland, to countenance and ' support the Church In the struggle which seems now to await her(!!!) — ' to stand by her as their forefathers did in all her contendings — to bear ' her up by their prayers and exertions amid every difficulty and danger, ' and to persevere in the contest, till, under the guidance of the great ' Captain of your salvation, you bring it to a glorious and successful ' issue. I shall only say farther, that I am sure it is needless for me, ' in setting forward these principles, to disclaim all political motives, any ' regard to the schemes and objects of political partlzanship. — We are ' contending for the faith once delivered to the saints — for CAmi's crown, ' and for the best interests of the country.' Mr. Dunlop (one of the Committee of Assembly appointed to sup port their present plans) is found seconding a resolution to the following effect : (p. 18.) ' That it has been on many occasions, and especially at ' the period of the second Reformation in 1638, the great glory and pecu- ' liar privilege of the Church of Scotland, that she has faithfully con- ' tended for Christ's sole headship over his Church ; for the government * established by Him in the hand of church office-bearers, distinct from ' the civil magistrate ; and for the consequent power of the Church, de- ' rived from him, and therefore never to be abandoned, to regulate all ' spiritual affairs according to the word of God.' In support of this re solution, it was stated by the Clergyman who moved it, ' That, independ- ' ently of all civil authority and sanction whatever, the Lord Jesus Christ, ' as King and Head of the Church, has committed the keys of theChurch, ' the complete power of regulating and governing all spiritual affairs, into ' the hands of ecclesiastical office-bearers ; that there lies upon those ' office-bearers a corresponding indispensable duty and obligation to go- ' vern those affairs according to his laws ; and, consequently, that, with- ' out his express permission, which nobody ever ventured to allege, they ' may never deliver up this power and duty, in whole or in part, into ' the hands of any civil authority upon the face of the earth.' And again, ' No, no, sir, let mere politicians dream as they will about the ' Church's government being the creature of the State. The civil esta- ' blishment of the Church is, doubtless, the creature of the State ; but ? the power of the keys, — the power of regulating all spiritual affairs, ' according to the word of God, is inherent in the Church, — belongs to ' her, apart from all human authority, in virtue of the mere naked ' word and will of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not even within the ' power of the State to confer any spiritual authority whatever. It may ' ratify privileges already possessed ; or it may confer additional civil « ones of the most important kind. But all ecclesiastical power, pro- « perly so called, whether of doctrine, of government, or of discipline, 'flows from the Lord Jesus Christ alone, and belongs to the Church ' intrinsically and inalienably, by virtue of immediate grant from his ' hand. ' I must beg your indulgence, sir, for a very few moments more. 22 ' while I state one or two conclusions manifestly arising out of the ' principles laid down.' Then, to prevent the possibility of supposing that the terms in which these principles are stated, apply only to that spiritual authority over all the members and office-bearers of the Church, as to doctrine, conduct, and any part of discipline, which belong, it must be con ceded, to every church, whether Established or not — the speaker, onfe of the clergymen of the Scotch metropolis, went on thus to state, in reference to the present state of the Church of Scotland, some of the prac tical ' conclusions manifestly' following from the principles he had laid down. One conclusion was, ' That the whole system of church patron^ ' age is contrary to the word of God. The Church is a free and inde- ' pendent spiritual kingdom. That proves it. Only put the case of two ' distinct civil kingdoms. Suppose that America had the power of ' nominating the rulers of Great Britain, would Great Britain any longer ' be free ? Would she any longer deserve the name of a kingdom at all .¦' ' And is it to be for a moment borne, that in the Church, the kingdom ' of the Lord Jesus Christ, a. foreign power shall step in and say — this ' man and that man shall rule you — at the very least, if you shall not * be obliged to have the man whom I offer, yet you shall have none but ' a man whom I have first selected and approved. If this is to be borne, ' then what becomes of those words of Christ — " I will give unto you " the keys of the kingdom of heaven," — " My kingdom is not of this " world .'''¦' What sort of a kingdom is that which another prince may " enter, and say who shall rule it— what men are the best qualified to ' fill its various offices .'' They tell us, forsooth, that the State, by en- ' dowing the Church, acquires the right of nominating her ministers. ' If I believed that to be necessarily involved in endowments, I should ' say, let them all go to the winds. But I do not believe it ; and there ' is not even a shadow of ground for asserting it. The State receives ' much more than ample compensation for all the aid it gives the ' Church, in the aid which the Church returns to the State. Why, ' the very end of an endowment Is defeated, and the State utterly stul- ' tifies its own act, when, in exchange for an endowment, it insists on ' crippling, fettering, despoiling the Church of her liberties. Sir, the ' principles laid down go all this length, that a mere veto will never do. ' It is doubtless a highly important privilege, compared with the want ' of it. But so long as a foreign power can step at all into the spiri- ' tualia of the Church, — so long as a patron can say, though not, indeed, ' you shall have the man whom I choose, yet you shall not have the ' man whom you yourselves might wish and deem it best to have — ' so long as any one vestige of the patron's power remains, the Chris- ' tian Church is not, and cannot be, what we have this night seen her ' in her own proper nature to be — a free, distinct, and independent ' spiritual kingdom.^ The same disposition to attach the sanctity and authority of divine truth to the institutions and ecclesiastical arrangements of some par- 23 ticular church, — and productive of the same intolerance, — Is found in recent treatises put forth by members of the Church of England. We are told with equal emphasis and zeal and confidence, that Epis copacy is the only form of church government sanctioned by the word of God — and that the Church of Scotland is not a Scriptural church, because it has not had unbroken succession of ordained ministers of the gospel from the times of the apostles, or of ministers ordained by bish ops, to whom alone the duty is held to have been committed by the apostles — the doctrine, in short, of apostolical succession. Without dwelling on the accuracy or value of the historical evidence, on which this distinction and prerogative is claimed for any church, or denied to the Church of Scotland, the important point to notice is, the grievous errors and intolerant views into which the most mild and estimable per sons are led, when they magnify into points of religious faith questions of ecclesiastical polity. In the notions last adverted to, is involved the doctrine, that the grace and blessing promised to the Church, and to the preaching of the glad tidings of salvation, are not to be obtained and perpetuated and dissem inated unless there is a particular course of human agency followed, viz. by the consecration of those who have been successively so ordained from the time of the apostles in unbroken order ; and that the word of God, proclaiming salvation through the atonement offered by our divine Sa viour for the sins of men, can be preached in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, only when it comes from the lips of those who can exhibit the historical evidence of this unbroken succession. Is the grace of God so limited in its blessings to the Church ? Is the gospel (sent to all men) a dead book, if not expounded by this succession of ordained ministers ? Is the blessing vouchsafed only to their preach ing, and are ordinances vain, except from their hallowed hands '^ Are the prayers of a sincere believer not to find access and acceptance. If not offered by one confirmed by a bishop ? Are theprayers and devotions of a congregation of believers, conducted and offered by one set apart for the ministry, vain or not acceptable, unless that individual has been consecrated by a bishop .'' Is It to be held that a nation could not de liver itself from the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, un less some of the bishops of that church were converted, in order to con tinue the blessing promised to the Church .'' What is this but to mag nify the value of human instruments, by derogating from the power, and disregarding the special promises of the divine author ot our com mon faith .'' — to claim divine authority for the particular institutions and views of particular churches in matters of polity ? — and to convert into articles' of religious belief, the distinctions which the accidents and peculiarities in the histories of different countries have Introduced into their ecclesiastical establishments ? It would be easy to show that in this absurd doctrine, — limiting the communication of divine blessing, and giving virtue and spiritual influence to human agents, — are in volved the germs of many of the worst errors and corruptions of popery, and the sources of the most grievous intolerance. It is noticed now, as affording another illustration of the lamentable effect, in blinding and 24 prejudicing the minds of men, and in subjugating laymen, in their most important interests, to ecclesiastical influence, of all dogmas as to the systems of particular churches or points of ecclesiastical polity, which confound these questions with the articles of faith unfolded in the Scriptures, and pretend to decide them by arbitrary and sweeping ap plications of general passages in the Bible.* Such attempts to claim the sanctity of religious truth, and the au thority of Scripture, not only for the leading principles of different sys tems of ecclesiastical polity, but for the details and arrangements of each, lead of course to an utter intolerance for all different systems. In the more measured language of some, the Church of Scotland may . be assisted and aided as a matter of expediency. In this view of expedi- ency — the Church being established — being better of course than none — doing a great deal of good (how consistently with such views I do not understand, if the promise of divine grace is not vouchsafed to it) though not a scriptural church — an argument, forsooth, may be found to justify an Episcopalian in supporting Church Extension in Scot land. In the more enthusiastic language of a Scotch Presbyterlan,-f- the churches of England and Ireland ' will never be popular churches, will ' never thrive in godliness, will never succeed in thoroughly Christian- ' izing the land, — will never survive the shock of that immense mass ' of dissent which is now mustering its scattered forces to effect her * The truth, on such questions, is admirably stated by Calvin, (In his Commentaries on the Epistles) in the course of remarks on a verse in 1 St Corinthians, xiv. 40. — ' Quae sententia ostendit, noluisse eum as- ' tringere superioribus praeceptis conscientias, tanquam per se necessa- ' riis : sed quatenus decoro pacique servirent. Hinc (ut dixi) coUigi- ' mus perpetuam doctrinam, quem in finem dirigenda sit Ecclesiae poli- ' tia. Dominus extemos ritus in libertate nostra ideo reliquit, ne pu- ' taremus cultum ejus illic inclusum : Interea tamen non permisit nobis ' vagam effrenemque licentiam : sed cancellos (ut ita loquar) circumde- ' dit ; vel certe ita moderatus est libertate quam dabat, ut demum aesti- ' mare ex ejus verbo liceat quid rectum sit. Hie ergo locus rite expensus ' discrimen ostendet inter tyrannica Papae edicta, quee conscientias pre- ' munt dira servitute ; et pias Ecclesiae leges, quibus disciplina et ordo ' continetur. Quinctiam hinc coUigere promptum est, has posteriores < non esse habendas pro humanis traditionibus : quando-quidem fun- ' datae sunt in hoc generali mandate, et liquidam approbationem habent ' quasi ex ore Christi ipslus.' The statutes of the Scotch Parliament, establishing Presbytery, take the same ground. They do not hold the government or discipline of the Church to be matters of indifference. They establish the Scotch Church as founded upon the word of God, and agreeable thereto. But they do not claim for it the authority of divine Prescription — they do not declare that Presbytery alone is founded on the Word of God. •f- At the Commemoration Meeting, Edinburgh. 25 ' ruin, — until they have discarded the cumbrous appendages of prelacy ' once solemnly abjured by those lands, and exchanged it for a discip- ' line, government, and worship, less conformed Indeed to the vain pomp ' and glory of the world, but more congenial to the spirit of the meek ' and lowly Jesus.' The same gentlemen* moving these resolutions, and maintaining these opinions In December 1838, are in a few months afterwards found hold ing the same language in support of Dr. Chalmers's motion, and urging the adoption of the Veto, or of more extensivechanges on the government. But in this unlimited determination of all such questions by the inclu sion or exclusion of them from the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ, accord ing to the bias, educational impressions, ornatural enthusiasm of individu als or bodies of men, history shews us that the source of the greatest in tolerance is to be found, and that the reasoning is based on an assump- * I have attached. In common with most others, great importance to the resolutions and speeches at this Commemoration of the Assem bly 1638. In the first place, they exhibit the principles and practical views of the leading advocates for the proposed changes, and of the mem bers of the Assembly Committee, and of their other supporters. In the second place, it was a very earnest and formal declaration of principles, made in special reference to a period, when the principles, which they avowed, were acted upon and carried into effect. In the third place, it was avowedly and without disguise a meeting at which Patronage was denounced by these individuals as inconsistent with the word of God, and with the jurisdiction bestowed on the Church by its great Head. In the fourth place, instead of directing the recollections of the audience to the alarming encroachments and errors of Popery, which really formed the great moving causes of the exertions and of the excitement in 1638, when there was such just cause for apprehending the revival of Popery in Scot land, — (in direct contrast, in all the following points, with the Church service on the same occasion, conducted by Dr. Muir at Glasgow,) — the object of the meeting at Edinburgh was, first to attack Episco pacy, (as if from that quarter the Church of Scotland had any reason to apprehend direct or indirect encroachments) ; secondly, to put forth without disguise the claims of the Church to the full authority and power exercised and wielded in 1638 ; and, thirdly, to defend and sti mulate opposition to the judgment of the Court in the Auchterarder case, and to uphold the entire independence of the jurisdiction of the Church on all matters which the Church itself shall declare to fall with in its jurisdiction. And, lastly, the opinions of these clergymen and their supporters were avowedly put forth for the particular purpose of preparing the minds of people for a contest or collision with the State, and for the spectacle of the Church renouncing subordination, as an Establishment, to judgments of the Courts respecting statutes of the realm, — and of endeavouring to create agitation and Interest and ex citement in support of the Church In this contest. 26 tion fatal to the liberties of mankind. One is too much apt to disregard the symptoms of such intolerance in the present day, and to treat with too much contempt the risk of liberty suffering from such causes. The evils to be apprehended from such doctrines will often be found in the tendency to lead into opposite errors, and to give too ready a re ception and too much weight to religious opinions, which seem to protect their votaries from these extravagancies. The Catholic reli gion finds sources of strength in all these errors, and accommodates its advances to the repugnance with which many will turn from these opinions. And what sincere Protestant, reflecting on the consequen ces of such extravagant doctrines in unsettling the views of many re specting their national Church and its Institutions, can look without alarm to the gradually increasing hold which the tenets and influence of the Catholic church are obtaining among many classes, — to the dispo sition to turn to its apparent unity, its authority, and discipline, as a sort of refuge from the discussions and strife of other persuasions, — to the avowed disposition to view the difference, after all, as so very slight ! — the conformity in essential truths (!) as so complete, and the system as one, after all, so like our own (!) as really to carry with it nothing so very monstrous as our forefathers in their horror supposed, while it saves us from all those extravagant and high-flown notions which now so much abound. Who, seeing these things, and knowing, as any general acquaintance with life will teach him, that the revival of such extravagant doctrines in both of the reformed churches, has produced great dissatisfaction in the minds of the laity, can look without anxiety to the increasing influence of the Church of Rome, which, adapting itself to a corrupt and lax age, will find in all the extravagancies, dis cord, and violence in Protestant Churches, better means now than at any former period for advancing its own pretensions to Divine authority, regaining its former influence, and introducing anew the most oppres sive mental tyranny under which man can groan. Is the most ardent profession of the democratical principles any protection against the en tire subjection of the mind and conduct to the influence of the Catho lic priesthood ? Is the press, — is the state of the present times, any pre servative against the insidious approaches and gradual encroachments of such a tyranny ? It Is not in these alone that the sound and health ful spirit of civil and religious freedom is to be found, if the essentials of saving truth are ever confounded with questions as to the ecclesiastical systems of different churches, and if men lose sight of the pure doctrines of the Cross in undue contention about systems of polity. To any reflecting reader of history, there can be no question of the danger, we are now exposed to, of the encroachments of mental tyranny, by reason of the extreme opinions to which I have alluded. Can any one be so slight an observer of what is passing around him in Scotland and other countries, as not to see that a spirit of intolerance is arising with more or less disguise from popular branches of the Reformed Church ? That the claim by Churchmen for Divine and spiritual au thority, In whatever they are pleased to call spiritual matters or the in terests of the Church, is preparing the way for great encroachments on 27 I the freedom of mankind from this source, must be evident to any one ¦iiho only considers what these pretensions do really amount to, and the anxiety and agitation with which they are urged and enforced. Assem blages of men are industriously congregated, to whom high-flown ap peals from Scripture are made as to the authority of the Church, con founding the scriptural use of the term Church of God, with the influence and authority of the ministers or orders of a particular church at which the language of the Bible is used to sanctify, as if with exclusive appropriation, the powers and authority of the Ecclesiastics or Courts of the Church to which the spectators belong. The prejudices and weaknesses and failings of mankind are flatteredhy declamation on their ' rights in the Church of Christ.' Some of the greatest weaknesses of the mind are thus flattered and fostered. Spiritual pride, (so fertile a source of practical error — so fatal a poison to national character — so de trimental to the true interests of religion), is ministered to, and en couraged by those whose duty it is to repress it. The weaknesses of the people at large are appealed to, In order to strengthen their support of the Church which makes the appeal. Their support is claimed for the ecclesiastical rulers who assert their rights as well as those of the Church. ' 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,' — is the appeal of Mr. Candlish (in supporting Dr. Chalmers's motion,) to the people of Scotland — and he expresses his hope, ' that when the question is thus put, it will be fully ' and cordially and unanimously answered throughout all our parishes.' — Such is the tone by which a popular clergy, pressing on towards their ob jects, increased influence and power, seek the means of subjugating the minds of the people at large, and commencing a species of mental de spotism, which for the time will be equally burdensome, but happily will be sooner shaken off than papal tyranny. I am well aware that Dr. Chalmers, a few days after his late motion was carried, disclaimed in the Assembly any participation in the ' WATCHWORD of a particular section of this Assembly,' as he called it, — viz. ' the right of the Christian people,' — and said he desired to be under stood as contending for the veto for ' the Christian good of the people.' But the movement which he contributed in 1833 to set a-going, has long since gone beyond his power of controul. And although he thus emphatically derided the language employed, yet the views which he himself states in support of his motion, lead, if intended to be taken as he expresses them, and to have any practical bearing, to the very doctrine he disclaims. In his published speech I find he distinct ly advocates the right of the people, although certainly it must be ad mitted that it is not easy to collect from his speech on what ground, whether scriptural, ecclesiastical, or legal, he rests the claim of right. The only difference between Dr. Chalmers and Mr. Candlish Is, that the latter takes up a distinct and consistent ground, — the former shrinks back from the conclusions to which his own reasoning equally leads. I have carefully considered again and again Dr. Chalmers's speech, both as reported next day, and as published at some interval of 28 time by himself. And if the power of rejection by the people, of any presentee whom they do not choose to have, is not advocated by him on the ground of their right as members of a Christian congregation so to reject, I own I am unable to understand the tenor of his argu ment. True ; though the right is asserted, the grounds upon which the claim of right is rested, it is impossible distinctly to collect from his speech. Sometimes he seems about to approach very nearly to the ground taken by Mr. Candlish. Then he seems to rest the right on the power of the Church to bestow it : Again on the ground that it is ex pedient for the good of the people that they should have it, and in another, and perhaps the most distinct passage, (to be afterwards no ticed), he rests the right on the ground that in law they do possess it. Since the meeting of the Assembly, many, too many, proofs have occurred, that those maintaining the extreme doctrines to which I have alluded are not to be restrained by any such passing disclamation from Dr. Chalmers, or controlled in their views by him. Indeed, a very im perfect estimate will be formed of the objects and views of the leading and active promoters of the proposed changes, and of the opinions of the Committee of Assembly, if Dr. Chalmers should be taken as ex pounding their views or representing their opinions. A series of weekly tracts, in order to awaken the people to the im portance of the non-intrusion principle, which the Church has taken up for them, are at present published, it is understood, by clergymen and members of Assembly, — if not of the Committee appointed to pro secute these objects. The first of these concludes with the passages of Mr. Candlish's speech which 1 have quoted, as stating the ground on which the claim for the Veto rests ; and in a subsequent Number it is argued, that the principle for which they are contending is ' founded on the Word of ' God and the dictates of reason.' It is said, ' Every thing contained ' in the Word of God, bearing upon the settlement of ministers, the ' rights of conscience and of private judgment, the responsibilities and ' obligations of men, contributes to establish the great truth, that the ' Christian people, that is, those who are duly and regularly admitted ' to the privileges of Church membership, should, at the very least, ' have full liberty to give or withhold their consent to the settlement ' of a minister among them, and by so doing to secure or prevent his ' admission as their pastor. The statements which the apostles have ' left to us of the conduct which they pursued, and of the principles by ' which they were animated in such matters, plainly prove that they ' would have been no parties to thrusting ministers upon reclaiming ' congregations ; and as we have also to this effect the testimony of ' Clement, mentioned by Paul, (Phil. iv. 3.), as one of his fellow- ' labourers, " whose names are in the book of life," and who was set- ' tied minister of the Church of Rome under apostolic superintendence. ' In his Epistle to the Church at Corinth, written during the lifetime ' of some of the apostles, he assures us that the apostles, in preaching ' the gospel over the world, appointed the first-fruits of their ministry ' to be bishops and deacons, (for there were only two orders of ordinary 29 ' ecclesiastical office-bearers in those days), " with the consent of the 'i whole Church." We are fully warranted to expect, that a principle 'which rests upon such high and sacred authority, and which is in it- ' self so reasonable and proper, will work beneficially for the interests ' of religion, and that the neglect or violation of it will be attended ' with the most injurious consequences ; and this has been most fully ' confirmed by the history of the Church of Scotland.' The same views have been openly Inculcated during the last year in sermons from the pulpit, which have been made the vehicle of recom mending the present procedure of the Church in opposition to the judgments of the Courts of law. Congregations have been told that the Veto act embodies ' a prln- ' clple of the Church of Christ.' ' In the maintenance of this great ' principle, the Church has come into collision with a judicial Court, ' whose power to take cognizance of the question it altogether denies, ' and whose sentence it refuses to carry into effect. In all the stages ' of this procedure, be it remembered, the Church is only asserting the ' very principle for which our fathers, at this period, contended — the ' Headship of Christ and the rights of the Christian people ; and we, ' her ministers and elders, in maintaining this ground, and in exposing ' ourselves to trouble by such a course, are to be looked upon as occupied ' in no personal party contest, but in a struggle for that kingdom which ' the Redeemer has bought with his own blood, and for the liberties of ' its subjects ;' (!!!) 'a struggle in which our ancestors were en- ' gaged and were victorious, and where, encouraged by their example, ' strong in the goodness of our cause, and looking to the guidance and ' the blessing of our Covenant God, we either hope for similar success, ' or where we are prepared to suffer the loss of all things rather than ' surrender the brightest jewel in the diadem of our exalted Lord — the ' independence of the " Church, which is his body, the fulness of Him " that filleth all In all." In such a struggle we may surely rely upon ' the prayers and efforts of the descendants of our covenanting fore- ' fathers.'* The temper of the times greatly aids the Presbyterian clergy In their present attempt to acquire influence. Many are greatly alarmed by the attacks made on the Establishment by Dissenters. Many justly view with great anxiety and distrust the measures proposed by government since 1831, both in regard to the Established Church of England and Ire- * Many other instances might be given to shew that the measures of the Church are at present advocated, generally speaking, on the views and principles I have exhibited. I have given the above extract from a sermon by a clergyman, who has distinguished himself as an advocate of the proposed changes. It is needless to give more instances of a strain of reasoning which is equally lamentable, whether in sermon or in any other form, when addressed by the ministers of the Church of Scotland to their congregations, and the hearers of the Church generally. 30 land, and in regard to schemes of education. Many deplore the in creasing laxity which the government have exhibited in regard to questions in which religious principles are involved. And many dwell with apprehension on recent declarations made in high quarters, that there is no difference, in any essential point of doctrine, between the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches. The tendency thus is natural to go along with the faithful and earnest clergy of the Church of Scotland, in schemes which they bring forward as essential for the interests of religion, and for the glory of the Church, With others, again, the restless spirit of the age leads to a desire for agitation and change in all parts of the social system ; and that desire for change hurries them on to support schemes In which they see only immediate power to the congregations, without dwelling on the ulterior and inevi table tendency to centre all power in the Presbyteries. Many, zealously attached to their own Church, willingly receive as conclusive any refe rences to Scripture which are brought forward to shew that it is the only species of Establishment ' warranted by the word of God,' and see, in such views, only cause for greater and warmer love for the Church of their fathers ; — without perceiving the certain effects of such views in producing the greatest intolerance, both in Laymen and Eccle siastics, and in encouraging the pretensions of those, who derive the power they claim from such sacred sources. Thus, for the time, the minds of many are blinded to the certain pro gress towards ecclesiastical tyranny, which will be the necessary result of many of the measures which the General Assembly for some years past have been endeavouring to carry through. The proceedings of the General Assembly of this and the preceding year, to which I intend in the sequel to request the attention of your Lordship, will amply illustrate the rapid strides which the clergy of the Church of Scotland are making in their attempt to grasp power and ascendancy, and the intolerant and overbearing assumption of supe riority over all other authority, which they are openly aiming at in their present measures. 2. In the next place, a doctrine has been asserted, more openly too than has often occurred in modern times, — which lies at the root of ecclesiastical usurpation and tyranny, in whatever age or church it has been assumed and exercised over the minds of men. In order to acquire power, which had never been originally conferred by the State on any Church, the course pursued has been to put forward, more or less directly, the right of the Church, (that is, of the ecclesias tical authorities,) to decide on the limits and extent of its own autho rity, and to determine what matters are ecclesiastical and fall under its jurisdiction. This is a claim which carries with it great plausibility. It is urged with a mixture of undeniable truth, though grievously misapplied. The terms in which it is stated are capable of a variety of meanings. The mind is apt to forget the distinction between the Church in the abstract, and the particular Church which may have been adopted in the country, 31 — the question being truly, whether the Ecclesiastics at the head of that Church may, as members of the Establishment, contend that they are to determine the extent of the Jurisdiction of that Established Church. When this claim is rested on the spiritual authority deduced from the divine institution of a Church on earth by our blessed Saviour, and on the powers conferred on it by the Great Head of the Church, it is one which may be made to include any subject, that can affect human happiness, or influence the progress of human society. And of course to those who believe, or affect to believe, that they are entitled thus to decide all questions between Church authorities and the State, by laying claim to divine authority in their own proceedings, there is no answer. On such views the Church must decide, and is entitled to de cide in respect of its divine commission. The individuals may be fal lible, but the Church must be taken to be infallible. Its authority is from a higher source than that which the legislature exercises — and it appeals to the Word of God in support of the decisions which it pro nounces in favour of its own power. History abounds with the lamentable effects of this monstrous as sumption. But in none of the controversies between an Established Church and the State, has the doctrine been brought forward in a more alarming and unmitigated form, than in the recent discussions in the Church of Scotland by the advocates and supporters of the measures now pressed upon the Government and the Legislature. One of the resolutions, already quoted, adopted at the Commemora tion at Edinburgh of the Assembly 1638, at which meeting most of the supporters of Dr. Chalmers's motion assisted, asserts this claim in the most unlimited form. (Report, p. 18.) In supporting this motion, (which was seconded by Mr. Dunlop,) the gentleman who moved it, a clergyman of Edinburgh, stated, as the first conclusion he drew from the motion, and the principles it involved, (p. 24,) — ' 1. The first of them Is this, — that whensoever the question ' arises, what is spiritual and what civil, — what belongs to the sphere of ' the Church, and what to the sphere of the State, — what to the things ' that are Caesar's, and what the things which are God's — the Church ' mg.y not acknowledge any civil tribunal upon earth as the judge of that * question. This conclusion, the importance of which is quite well ' known to all acquainted with the present position of the Church of ' Scotland, is clearly and undeniably involved in the principle of a co- ' ordinate and independent church government. Sir, it is to give up ' the whole question, — it is to resign the entire government of the ' Church into the hands of the State, — to acknowledge, I do not say a ' subordinate tribunal of the State, but even the State itself, speaking ' by its highest possible organ, as the arbiter of the question, — what is ' spiritual ? Of course, the State, upon the other hand. Is not bound to ' acknowledge the Church as the arbiter. But there is an arbiter above ' them both.' Looking to the act 1592, establishing Presbyteries In Scotland, and 32 the cautious manner in which it recognised only such parts of the scheme presented by the clergy as that act specially enumerates, it would be difficult to maintain the above claim on any grounds to which the subjects of the kingdom were bound to submit : And hence, in ex plaining the views from which this conclusion is drawn, we are fairly told,' ' The subject. Sir, to which our attention Is drawn in this resolution ' is no mere strife of words. It is no question belonging to this world's ' shifting politics. It is not a question of mere ecclesiastical expe- ' diency. It is not the mere question, what were. In point of fact, ' the principles of our forefathers, who might be wrong, or what is the ' constitution of the Church of Scotland, which is also not beyond the ' reach of error. It is afar higher question than all this. The sub- ' ject of this resolution, as I hope to be able to show before I sit down, ' is one involving principles of the Word of God never to be relin- ' quished, — principles which no change of circumstances can in the ' slightest degree modify or change, — principles for which our fore- ' fathers did not more manfully than rightly and dutifully contend, ' even unto death, — principles not so much connected with the rights ' and privileges of the Christian church, as with the sacred and inalien- ' able prerogatives of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Zion, the ' King and Head of the Church. ' And I beg. Sir, to add the expression of my humble, but very ' clear and decided conviction, that the Church of Scotland still must ' take her stand upon the Holy Scriptures, — must take her stand, not ' so much upon the mere fact of her constitution, as upon the authority ' of that constitution in the Word of God, if she would go through ' with the struggle on which she has so nobly entered; — If she would ' immovably and successfully maintain her ground there, — if she would ¦ ? show herself worthy to commemorate, or worthy to perpetuate and ' hand down the testimony of those noble men who adorned the Assem- 'bly of 1638.' And then follows an argument on the ' power of government,' — the power of ' the keys' designed by Christ to go down to ' the ordinary ' and standing office-bearers of the Church in all ages,' deduced from the well known verses in St. Matthew xvi. 18, 19, and other texts of Scrip ture, in every word of which, I presume, John M'Hale, callmg himself Archbishop of Tuam, would most cordially concur. Again, in the recent debate in the General Assembly, a learned gen tleman (a member of the Committee in supporting Dr. Chalmers's motion,) at once laid down the propositions, as consistent with the connection between an Established Church and the State — nay, as part of the constitution of the Church of Scotland, received by the act 1 592 from the State — ' First, That the judgment pronounced by the Pres- ' bytery of Auchterarder, and declared to be illegal by the Court of ' Session, related to a matter properly spiritual and ecclesiastical.' — And, secondly, ' That in the event of a dispute as to whether it is pro- ' perly spiritual or ecclesiastical, it is within the province of the Church' ' Courts to determine the question in so far as regards the constitution 33 ' of the spiritual relation between pastor and people.'* The last words of this sentence, in truth, form no qualification of the doctrine for the determination, if within the province of the Church, must extend to all the necessary consequences of that determination. This sentence goes the length of maintaining the right of the Assembly to abolish patronage, to require a call, or to establish any system for the nomina tion of ministers, which they are pleased to say Is the best, or the only way of constituting this spiritual relation. The House of Lords has pronounced, on the appeal of the Church, its solemn decision as to the import of the statutes which established the national Church of Scotland, and declared (to use the words of this learned gentleman's speech,) ' that the Church Courts acted illegally ' in refusing to admit the presentee under the provisions of the veto « act.' (P. 27.) But then, it is said, ' But the Church Courts are equally entitled to ' construe the statutes which are the charter of their establishment, to ' the effect of vindicating and enforcing the jurisdiction in matters spl- ' ritual which the constitution has intrusted to them, and they would ' be traitors to that constitution, were they to prostrate at the feet of » the Court of Session those rights which the legislature, in such ex- * press terms, has, for the good of the community, exclusively vested ' In themselves.' And in order to illustrate the extent to which the Church could decide all such points, he stated as a proposition, ' which ' has been received for three centuries as axioms in our constitution,' that the induction to the benefice, as much as the ordination, are spiri tual matters, on which ' the constitution has invested the Church ' Courts with final and exclusive jurisdiction.' Oddly enough, these propositions were attempted to be supported by the Acts of Parliament on which the House of Lords have given judgment, thereby acknow ledging that it is to the statutes we are to look in order to ascertain the jurisdiction of the Established Church. It would lengthen needlessly this Letter, to multiply the proofs that the Presbyterian clergy avowedly rest their present measures on the right of the Church to determine the extent of its own authority, by deciding what is spiritual and properly within the province of a church, and what is not within its province. I shall have occasion to refer to Resolutions of the General Assembly, and of the Commission of the Assembly, which both assert this claim, and proceed on the exercise of it, to an extent, in point of claim, fully as extreme as any proceeding of the Church of Rome. The concession of this claim to an established church would be fatal to the liberties of mankind ; and the assumption has been in all ages the means by which ecclesiastical power and tyranny have been attained and defended. When maintained in a popular assembly, by laymen, as well as * Revised Speeches, p. 20. 34 ecclesiastics, this doctrine assumes the air of a popular topic. The independence of the Church forms the theme of high-sounding decla mation. And the minds even of laymen are flattered and deceived by the notion that they are advocating the rights of a popular body, and maintaining popular principles, because they are asserting an independ ence against the law. The delusion is lamentable. They are blindly advocating pretensions which will tend to subjugate the minds of men to the most oppressive of any species of despotism — ecclesiastical ascendancy. But thus it has ever been, that ecclesiastical power gains supremacy, The mind is equally fettered in whatever form its encroachments are made. We see at present Popery for the time in alliance with Radi calism, and allowing its adherents to announce themselves as the oppo nents of any establishment, and to advocate political and ecclesiastical principles, which a Roman Catholic church, in the full possession of power, could not for a moment tolerate. By permitting and encourag ing this in the meantime, Its wily priesthood see that their opponents are deceived into the belief that they are the advocates of popular rights; while they delude the members of their own Church, who are thus led to suppose that their political opinions are permanently reconcilable with the doctrines of the Church of Rome : And thus its clergy are pushing on only the more surely towards the assumption of the power which will, if attained, soon destroy all such theories. These reflections press themselves on every one who dispassionately considers the course which things are taking In the Church of Scot land. The ascendancy and undue Influence of a Presbyterian clergy, the exercise by them of power and authority by means of their popular as semblies, severe and irksome as such may be for the time, cannot, for tunately, from the very nature and constitution of the Church, long subsist. But the evils will be great and lasting ; the effects on the human mind, and on the interests of religion, deep and serious. When ever the Presbyterian clergy have thus overstepped their proper pro vince, the result has been to give to all their proceedings, and to their ecclesiastical influence, a degree of moroseness, of severity, of intolerance for difference of opinions and customs, of aversion to other forms of worship, a desire to bring all into conformity to themselves, an illiber- ality towards dissenting persuasions, and a wish to govern and controul all matters in the country by Ecclesiastical authority, and by appeals to Scriptural instances and texts, which have proved most fatal to liberty of opinion, and ultimately most detrimental to the influence of religion. Such excesses might easily be shewn to be the natural results of the influence of popular assemblies, and of the competition between a number of rival candidates, in popular discussions, for the reputation of superior sanctity and of superior activity and zeal for the promotion of the glory of God and the good of the Church. But these characteristics of the ascendancy of the Presbyterian clergy of former times, can never long find favour in the human mind, and will produce, as in other times. 35 a reaction which leads to opposite extremes, viz. to Indifference to reli gion itself, — to a disposition to banish its influence from the direction of human affairs, because It comes to be viewed In connexion with the excesses of churchmen, — to hostility to the system of Presbytery which is charged with these excesses, and to the spiritual superintendence of the clergy of that Church, whose influence had been used for the acqui sition of undue power. We are told that Presbytery was but imperfectly established In Scot land in 1688, — that the Scotch Church was then despoiled of many of its highest attributes, — that the Church of Scotland In 16 ^8, and as it then was called forth, is the great practical exemplar, towhlch the Church is at present desirous to approximate. And do we not know the fatal effects in producing these opposite extremes in the human mind which followed the ten years in which that constitution ' had fair play .'" This is the lamentable and grievous result which the view of past times leads one to apprehend from the present state of things in the Scottish Church. Other ten years of similar encroachments, of Increasing auste rity towards conscientious difference of opinion on points of polity, of in creasing hostility to the sister Church of England, of further assumption of power, of continued attempts to concentrate in the Presbyteries, which is the real aim of the Church, the practical selection of ministers under the pretext of either the veto or the choice of the congregation ; of op position to and disregard of the decisions of the civil courts, under the sanction of appeals to the Divine Head of the Church, as the source of their authority ; of attempts to compel the submission of all their licen tiates to their arbitrary and illegal acts, under the threat of deposition and expulsion ; — Other ten years of such a course of things, and how many will be driven from the church of their forefathers : — How many will be found hostile to any establishment in which such excesses seem to be the result of prosperity ; and, alas ! how sure, also, the tendency of mind which will thus be engendered, in throwing off the restraints of a galling and austere yoke, to seek for liberty in indifference, in levity, and in contempt for all serious things. We are proceeding rapidly in the course which led to similar results in former times ; and some of the clergy of the Church, I know well, already see the symptoms of such consequences among the circle of their own friends, and among their own flocks. 3. A third source of serious concern, is to be found in the increasing disposition to address these questions of Ecclesiastical Power, and of the rights and privileges of the Christian people, to the lower orders among the members of the Establishment, as the class of society, tahich is in some way or other more peculiarly interested in them; and to represent that class as the persons who alone, or chiefly, can enter Into the feelings and objects and views of the clergy in their present measures, and are alone qualified, by the character and qualities of their Christian feelings, and by the fervour of their devotion, to appreciate the impor- 36 tance of these objects, and alone able and qualified to sit in judgment on the fitness of the presentees. The aim of all this is very plain ; and the effect is not less obvious. Such a strain of address from the ministers of the Church, tends to flatter the weakness of those to whom it is addressed, and to tempt them to take up these questions, as matters peculiarly interesting to them : — But it also tends to engender in them spiritual pride of the very worst kind, — the pride of believing in their own superior piety, and of looking on themselves as the most valued class of the Church of Christ. This train of address Is calculated, (whether designed or not,) to induce them to lend implicit credit and support to the ministers who openly declare that they are the class who are chiefly interested in their present plans, and are the best qualified to appreciate their importance; and that their feelings and opinions and judgment are of far greater value than that of all the rest of the Church, in the selection or rejec tion of ministers. This stimulant is now unhesitatingly applied to the feelings of this class of the members of the Church, by many of the advocates of the measures which your Lordship is to be solicited to promote. It was with great pain and grief that, in common with many others of Dr. ChaU mers's friends, I saw the tendency of a great part of his speech, especially as it was delivered, in support of the motion which he so unexpectedly made for a resolute adherence to the Veto act, whatever might be the consequences. He declared that the upper classes did not understand them (the ministers of the church) , that they did not know the objects for which they were labouring, and did not enter Into their feelings their views or their labours ; and this statement was accompanied with a declamatory denunciation of the supposed feelings of the upper ranks, contrasted with elaborate descriptions not only of the interest and the ardour with which the humbler classes both receive the labours of the clergy, and enter into the objects of their ministerial duties, — but of their wonderful and just perception of and relish for gospel truth, and their singularly correct judgments on the qualifications of their pastor.* The upper ranks were repeatedly represented as having no sympathy for these feelings of the lower orders, by which alone the latter were supposed to be ever actuated in rejecting a presentee, — as disposed to treat all such matters with contempt, and unable to appreciate the interest which the common people took in the subject. And thence he treated the whole Veto question as one belonging to the ' home-bred peasantry of the country,' — or, as he said in 1833, ' our * A great deal of what was said by Dr. Chalmers on this subject does not appear in the revised edition of the speech, though many strong passages are left. But a speech by Dr. Chalmers in the Gene ral Assembly is no passing matter — leaving no trace behind. He gave sanction and authority to topics of a very perilous and questionable character, especially when they are to be handled by inferior minds, less disposed and less able to counteract the effect of them. 37 ' ploughmen, our artizans, our men of handicraft and hard labour,' discussed the matter as if the lower orders alone were either qualified to discern the gifts of evangelical preachers, or took sufficient Interest in the subject, to be entitled to regard in the question respecting the mode of their appointment. It is their wish, — ' the honest demand ' of the common people for a pure gospel,' — which with him seems to be the only expression of opinion on the part of the Christian people which requires to be thought of; and as they cannot {he says) state, even to the Presbytery, their objections to soundness of doctrine or soundness of preaching, therefore the right of rejection without reasons must be given, to enable them, ' in their discernment of the gospel,' in their ' just perception of the truth,' to reject unfit presentees. That which was said with genius by Dr. Chalmers, is more coarsely repeat ed by others in the hope of gaining support from the lower classes of the members of the Church. The ' Christian people' seem to be taken as synonymous with the ' common people.' It is strange that a matter in which every one, as a Christian, is equally interested, should be represented as a question in which the lowerclasses are chieflyinterested,or alone qualified to understand. True, there is an extent of religiousfc/ioto/frfg-e, as well asof^ie(y; of acquaintance with the sublimest truths of the gospel, as well as with its hopes and con solations; of the habit and spirit of prayer, and therefore of strength for duty, of singleness of heart and elevation of feeling, of firmness in trial, and of support amidst sufferings of whatever kind, found beneath the roof of the Scottish cottage, which the state of no other people on earth can excel ; and which afford ample proof that the clergy, for the last eighty years, have completely fulfilled the main purpose of a national church. On that very account — exactly because they have that degree of reli gious knowledge — there is not the slightest risk that, if they have ob jections to soundness of doctrine or soundness in the mode of preaching, such objections cannot be stated and made perfectly intelligible to their ecclesiastical superiors by pious individuals among the lower ranks in Scotland. But passing for the present from that point, I do believe there never was a greater mistake than the declaration of Dr. Chalmers, that the upper classes do not understand or appreciate the ministers of their church. I believe the truth to be exactly the reverse, viz. that many of the latter will not understand or do justice to the former — will not believe their real and sincere interest in the objects which are com mon to all classes, or perceive that their opposition, and their present anxiety in regard, to the measures of the Church, originate in the con viction that the welfare of themselves and their children is bound up with the well-being and good condition of the Church, from which they, as well as the lower classes, are equally to receive instruction ; and to the ministers of which they look for comfort, consolation, and direction, with as much docility, with as strong a feeling of the necessity of their ministrations, and, 1 believe, with as much gratitude, as the humbler members of their congregations. 38 I believe the anxious attempts made to gain support by this flattery, addressed by members of the Church to the lower and middling classesj have in a great measure failed. But it is not unlikely that it may in some quarters produce, for the time, a considerable impression. And when it is remembered that, in the corruption and deceitfulness of the heart, pride is one of the most besetting infirmities, fostering itself even in the possession, of religious knowledge, and prone to find aliment even in the perversion and abuse of the true and sound Calvinistic truths of our Church, we must be prepared, — if a portion of the Scottish clergy persevere in these appeals, — for more permanent and serious conse quences to the minds and temper and habits of thought and action, among the lower classes of the members of the Church in some parts of the country, than merely giving their support, (if they do that), to the present proposals for supporting the measures of the Assembly. Such a disposition as that, which the flattery thus applied tends to foster, is likely to be productive of discontent with their lot In life, and dissatisfaction with the other necessary arrangements of socie ty. Those who are taught to believe that they are best qualified to decide, without the necessity of assigning a reason for their opin ion, on the qualifications of the ministers of the Church through out each parish in the country, and that the opinion of the most nu merous class is admitted at once and of necessity, by the Church, to be the most valuable, and to be by itself conclusive on such an impor tant matter, are not likely to be satisfied with the other arrangements of the social system, which are not founded on similar views, and which do not acknowledge, (in the spirit of the Veto law,) that the para mount and controlling influence should reside in mere numbers. It cannot be supposed that they are cheerfully to acquiesce in a different distribution of influence in other matters of inferior moment, or to be lieve that the qualifications which the Church tells them they possess so eminently and so universally, will not lead them to as sound a judg ment in matters of politics as of religion. One result is inevitable, — viz. that those to whom such descriptions of their own Christian qualifications and purity of motives are address ed, will beyond all doubt, (and most justly too, in a question with Dr. Chalmers) — demand the entire abolition of patronage — demand, that, being so well qualified, they shall have the choice of their pastor, and shall not be fettered by the nomination of any patron. Dr. Chalmers seems to think that the charge of radical principles had been brought against the ministers who had advocated the Veto act, and that a misapprehension upon this subject is the cause of the dissatisfaction, which he seems acutely to feel has been so generally manifested among all the upper classes against the recent proceedings of the Church. I never heard it. Assuredly no one who knows any thing of the opinions of the Church, could give the slightest credit to such an imputation, for happily the fact is universally and notoriously the re verse, — much less to such a charge against himself. The emphatic de- 39 claration ascribed to him the day after the account of the Reform Bill, in 1831, reached Edinburgh — ' It is much too plebeian for me,' I believe described the opinions of the great proportion, as well as of those who may usually support him, as of those who differ from him, in the ec clesiastical courts. But it may not the less happen, that the effects of some of the mea sures which they advocate, and of the arguments by which they are de fended, may be very prejudicial to the peace and well-being of society, and injurious to the character of the most numerous class of the mem bers of the Church. Dr. Chalmers may be assured, that the nature of the questions in volved in the Veto, and of the points respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the Church which the Assembly has chosen to raise, are much better understood than he supposes, and that the dissatisfaction to which he alludes, does not arise from so very absurd and vulgar an error as the supposition, ' by the noblemen and high gentlemen in ' Scotland,' that the spirit of anarchy now prevalent throughout Europe is the same which is actuating the ministers of the Church of Scotland. I believe that those to whom he alludes will be much astonished to find such a supposition ascribed to them — and not a little grieved to think, that in the General Assembly of their Church, Dr. Chalmers, speaking on behalf of his portion of the Church, should have openly declared of the higher classes, ' They know us not : — They understand us not.' I shall afterwards advert to the grievous error, with reference to far higher interests, of a Church holding out to any, or all, of its various classes of Hearers, that they are all qualified to sit In judgment, as a part of a public recognised ecclesiastical procedure, on those who are to be their instructors in religion and to be commissioned to speak to them the words of eternal life — are so thoroughly qualified and so inva riably well disposed to decide with discernment, pious views, and con scientious motives, in the rejection of proposed pastors, that their Church holds it to be unfitting and presumptuous to Inquire into the grounds of their rejection. II. Let me now bring before your Lordship in detail, the recent pro ceedings of the Church, and the nature and effect of the measures to which the Church propose to obtain the sanction of the government, and the approbation and concurrence of the legislature.* * Some of these proceedings are indeed well known. But others, which have not attracted much attention, could not be well understood without a connected narrative of the whole ; — and that narrative is ne cessary, in order to bring Into view the principles on which the measures have been framed, — and to explain the extent and true character, of the power which the General Assembly of 1 839 has claimed and assumed — of the opposition to law which they have announced and vindicated — of 40 In the year 1834, as your Lordship is well aware, the General Assembly passed an act, generally termed the Veto Law, with cer tain regulations for the purpose of enforcing it. The act is in the following terms.* 'Edinburgh, May SI, 1834. — The General Assembly ' declare that it is a fundamental law of the Church, that no pastor ' shall be intruded on any congregation, contrary to the will of the ' people ; and in order that this principle may be carried into full effect, ' the General Assembly, with the consent of a majority of the Presby- ' terles of this Church, do declare, enact, and ordain. That it shall be ' an instruction to Presbyteries, that if, at the moderating in a call to a ' vacant pastoral charge, the major part of the male heads of families, ' members of the vacant congregation, and in full communion with the ' Church, shall disapprove. oi' the person in whose favour the call ispro- ' posed to be moderated in ; such disapproval shall be deemed sufficient ' ground for the Presbytery rejecting such person, and that he shall he ¦ rejected accordingly, and due notice thereof forthwith given to all ' concerned ; but that if the major part of the said heads of families ' shall not disapprove of such person to be their pastor, the Presbytery ' shall proceed with the settlement, according to the rules of the Church: ' And further declare, that no person shall be held to be entitled to dis- ' approve as aforesaid, who shall refuse, If required, solemnly to declare ' in presence of the Presbytery, that he is actuated by no factious or ma- ' liclous motive, but solely by a conscientious regard to the spiritual ' interests of himself or the congregation. ' The General Assembly agree to transmit the above overture to ' Presbyteries for their opinion, and without a vote convert the same ' into an interim act.' It may be right here to state, although well known to your Lord ship, that as a part of the regular procedure in the settlement of ministers in Scotland, according to established law and practice, the parishioners are allowed to state to thePresbytery any objections, of what ever kind, which they have against the presentee, whether as respects.his life, conversation, doctrine, preaching, or general usefulness,- — that these objections are considered and discussed by the Presbytery with more or less form, according to their character and gravity, nay, if necessary, are made the subject of regular accusation, — that the Presbytery are bound to hear and consider them, — that their judgment:, whether re jecting or sustaining them, whether fiudhig the presentee qualified or not, whether refusing to settle him or not, is subject to appeal by any of the parties to the Synod of the bounds, and thence to the General Assembly, — that the parties are heard, if they choose, with counsel and agents in every stage, — that the whole procedure is matter of record, conducted with great publicity, forming an ordeal of a very severe de scription for any one to go through, against whom objections are stated. the practical consequences to which their present measures lead — and of the proposals which they areurging on the governmentand the legislature. * Auchterarder Report, vol, i. App. p. 1. 41 and attracting very great interest throughout the whole Church, if the case is one which merits any attention at all. Even if no objections are stated by the parishioners, the Presbytery must inquire into every circumstance connected with the life, conversa tion, doctrine, and qualifications of the individual, which comes to their knowledge, and must strictly examine him also on his proper trials, so as to secure his possession oi all the qualifications for the ministry, which the Church, not going beyond its proper competency, may choose to specify as requisite ; the degree to which such qualifications must be possessed, being matter for the judgment of the Presbytery in each case, subject to appeal to the Church Courts. The candidate must preach and lecture before the Presbytery, who may prosecute these trials till they are thoroughly satisfied. The manner in which he preaches — the soundness of his doctrine, the style and appropriateness of his preach ing — the suitableness of his views as to that duty for his proposed mi nistry — his notions of the pastoral duty, either as exhibited In his style of preaching or in any other way — his deficiency In zeal, In interest in his sacred work — his deficiency in any mental or physical requisite which is necessary for the charge to which he has been presented — in short, in any one respect, which the Church, in the exercise of its own judgnient, is satisfied unfits him for the charge to which he is presented — are all matters for inquiry and judgment of the Presbytery to which the presentation is addressed. The license previously granted, or the tria'ls by the Presbytery which may have previously given him that license, do not supersede these trials of the presentee, or this general inquiry as to his fitness, when he is appointed to a living, by the Pres bytery to whom that presentation is tendered by him. When your Lordship recollects that the Presbytery is a court com posed of independent ministers, none of them entitled to any patronage, except by their own decision in rejecting the presentee,' — that if within six months after the death of the last Incumbent, the patron has not ap pointed a person qualified in their opinion, the right, pro hac vice, falls to themselves yure devoluto, it is manifest, that the tribunal towhlch the fitness of the presentee must thus be subjected, is one of a very searching and severe character. The manner in which its duties are exercised, and the important trust discharged, depends on the Church itself. The previous trials by Presbyteries of those whom they choose to license, give the Church the uncontrolled power of limiting the number to such as are, in their opinion, qualified for the off,ce of the ministry, in every sense of qualification and fitness which the Church, or even particular Presbyteries, choose to assume. There is no restraint what ever in the Church as to the qualifications to be required in those whom they license. It is now quite fixed, that the presentee must have stu died in the way prescribed by the Church, and must be a licentiate. The Church may thus keep out every one whose mode of preaching is not even on the model they approve of, as well as not qualified to pro mote the objects of preaching. The subsequent trials of the licentiate, when he has received a presen tation, form a second, and as complete a check, as can be conceived, 42 exercised as both are by Courts sitting with the watchfulness and seve rity which forms one necessary feature of Presbytery in such trials, inas much as any one minister may appeal against the decision, as passing over defects in learning, deficiency in preaching, &c., and thereby acquire (so far as secondary motives are required to stimulate men to the faithful performance of duty,) distinction and credit in the Church for his zeal in keeping out a person likely to be an indifferent, feeble, and inferior minister. Hence, probably, in no other country is there the same security (if the Presbyteries of the Church do their duty) against improper and unsuitable selection among the licentiates of the Church (to whom the patron's choice is confined), for an appointment to any particular parish. The efficiency of the Scotch clergy as parochial ministers, and the manner in which they have retained the affections and promoted the welfare of all classes, under the system which has hitherto regulated their appointment, is one of those plain facts, which, as your Lordship remarked in giving judgment in the Auchterarder Case, ought to re concile any set of men to that system. It is in addition to this system, an imperfect outline of which I have now sketched, that the Assembly of 1834 for the first time declared, that they would give to the majority of male heads of families, being communicants, of the congregation, an absolute and peremptory veto on the nomination of the patron, so as to prevent the Presbytery taking the individual on trials, or making any inquiry whatever respecting either the motives or the propriety of rejection : — The Presbytery hav ing simply the ministerial duty of counting the votes, and Intimating the rejection of the presentee as matter of necessity, if the bare majority voted against him. The regulations anne\ed to this interim act in 1834, directed the Presbytery to appoint the presentee to preach once, on a day fixed, to the congregation: — they may appoint him to preach oftener; — but that is in their own discretion ; and the time Is limited within which the last day for preaching must occur :*— the Regulations further declared, (§ 13), ' That if the Presbytery shall find that there Is at last a major part of the ' persons on the roll dissenting, they shall reject the person presented, ' so far as regards the particular presentation, and the occasion of that ' vacancy in the parish.' And agaln^ (§ 16), ' that if no presentation ' shall be given within the limited time,' (six months). ' to a person ' from whose settlement a majority on the roll do not dissent, the Pres- ' bytery shall then present jure devoluto.'' Thus, this rejection by the veto was declared to be a sentence of disqualification, which should /or- feit the patron s right, and give to the Presbytery, — if the act of Assem bly could give it, — the presentation for that turn,y?(rc devoluto. The pretext, of allowing successive presentations within the six months, was very flimsy. It can rarely happen that a second could be effected within the .six months, (supposing the first presentee * Report, Auchterarder Case, vol. i. App. p. 4. 43 chose to acquiesce in this illegal procedure.) The practical result, when the act comes fully into operation, and the Church gets its own way, will give, in every case in which the veto is exercised, the presen tation to the Presbytery. And it requires little knowledge of human nature to see how the people and the Presbytery may play into each other's hands : what an effectual device this will become for throwing the whole patronage of the Church into the hands of the Presbvteries ; what a fruitful source of intrigues, for the appointment of relatives or adherents of particular parties in the Presbytery, or among the clergy of adjoining Presbyteries. To evince how steadily the acquisition of influence to the Church Courts was in view, the 17th regulation declared,* ' That cases of pre ' sentation by the I'resbytery, jure devoluto, shall not fall under the ' operation of the regulations in this and the relative act of Assembly, ' but shall be proceeded in according to the general laws of the Church ' in such cases,'— a tolerably distinct admission, that this sort of veto or rejection by the people, without cause stated, so as to prevent the presentee being taken on trials, had not only never previously been heard of, but that it could be dispensed with when it interfered with the assumption of power on the part of the Church Itself. That during a vacancy, opportunities will present themselves, by means of which the members of Presbytery may practically influence, and often wholly direct and regulate, the state of feeling with which the parishioners will hear the presentee, and thus determine the result of the vote, — cannot be doubted, when it is considered, that the other mem bers of Presbytery supply the vacant church seriatim, (and that in prac tice it is common to allow others to preach), and that one of them is specially to preach after the presentation has been received by the Pres bytery, in order to intimate on what day the presentee is first to preach. Indeed, interference is sanctioned by the Assembly ; for the last regulation directed the Presbyteries to ' use their utmost endeavours to " bring about harmony and unanimity in congregations, and be at pains ? to avoid every thing which may excite or encourage mireasonable ex- ' ceptions in people against a worthy person who might be proposed,'' — (and truly the presentation, after this Veto act, cam.e to be nothing but a proposal), — ' to be their minister.' The terms of this regulation left each Presbytery and each member to act under it, and in reference to the vacancy, according as he thought fit. If, in their judgment, the presentee is not worthy, or not so worthy as the person whom they had favoured, and whose appointment they wish to secure, the regulation in question gives plainly full scope for encouraging the opposition, which a knowledge of human nature leaves no room to doubt will easily be stimulated, in such a ease, against a presentee. This regulation, in truth, authorised, if it did not encourage, interference. It is needless to say how easily — by the style and course of preaching — allusions to passages in Scripture, or incidents in the history of the Church — re- * Report, vol. 1. App. p. 4. 44 marks on the responsibility of the duty intrusted to the communicants, and on the expectations which the congregation at large are entitled to form as to the manner in which the duty is to be performed — how easily a variety of individuals all known to the people, preaching successively during the several months which may elapse before the presentation is issued, may indispose the minds of the people against the patron's choice. It must also be kept in view, that although the right is given to male communicants only, yet the whole congregation are equally interested in the matter — that all will try to influence those whom they are ac quainted with among the male heads of families — that the matter will thus be the subject of great discussion, canvassing, and solicitation, throughout the parish — and that those who are to exercise the right may often feel that they should give way to the wishes and objections of others. If the Church has said that the people must be satisfied — that a minister should not be intruded upon a congregation contrary to the will of the people — that it is not for edification and the spiritual good of the people that effect should not be given to their will, the com municants will most naturally feel that whether they would have dis sented themselves, yet really as others wish another man — as some dis approve of and distrust the selection of this patron — and others do not like the individual, now that he has been heard — they really cannot go against the wishes of the mass, and must reject. Practically the indi vidual Is submitted to the approval or rejection of the congregation at large ; and in cases which have occurred, the active preliminary pro ceedings, both before a person was presented, or subsequently, have been joined in by the congregations, without any distinction between those who were communicants and were not. It may be worthy Of notice, before going further, that the cases which occurred in the course of that very year in which the act passed, so alarmed all thinking persons, th*t the Assembly, in 1835, found it necessary to issue the following Admonition, as if irresponsible power, given to the people by such an enactment, and proceeding on the ac knowledgment of an absolute right of rejection, — not to be controlled or accounted for in its exercise even to the Church, — could be regulat ed in its workings by pastoral admonition : — ' The General Assembly, in transmitting this revised and amended ' overture for regulating the due execution of the act of Assembly on ' the calling of ministers, now passed into a standing law of the Church, ' think it of iinportance that the people of the parishes in Scotland ' should not be misled as to the nature and effect of that act. It gives ' to them a negative voice against the intrusion of any minister into ' the parish, whom they are compelled under the solemn sanction of ' their conscientious belief as Christians, uninfiuenced by any ewtra- ' neous consideration, to declare to be unfit for the ministry in that ' parish. But the act is not intended to confer any rights of a differ- ' ent nature ; and any attempt to wrest it to other purposes, must de- ^' feat its object, and injure the fair interests of the people, which it is ' meant to protect. All canvassing and caballing therefore, for ob- * taining the appointment of a particular person to be minister, and all 45 ' combination beforehand for that purpose, are inconsistent with the ' principle of the act, and ought to disable every man who acts with a ' due regard to his Christian character, whatever may be his opinion ' on the law of patronage, from conscientiously declaring in the terms ' which may be required of him. The act has been proposed, and, * after much deliberation, passed by the whole Church, for the benefit ' of the people, according to the view taken, by the movers of it, of ' their rights under the existing law. But, in order that it may have ' every chance of producing such benefit, it must he fairly acted on by ' the patrons, the Presbyteries, and the people, — each party using the ' rights, and discharging the duties belonging to each, with the honest ' and single purpose of obtaining a good and faithful minister for the ' parish. It is ortly when this s.pirit shall duly influence all the partiesj ' that any measure devised by the General Assembly of the Church can ' be expected to accomplish the great ends for which it is intended — ' the spiritual edification of the people, their peace, happiness, and pro- ' sperity, and the strength and stability of the Church of Scotland.'* In the course of this Letter, I shall have occasion to mention some instances of the ' extraneous considerations' which, after the date of this Admonition, were shewn to have full scope in parishes, and of the ' canvassing and caballing' for the purpose mentioned, which have been unequivocally displayed. Of the evils which were experienced in the course of the very first year, the necessity for admonition in such terms, is sufficient proof. But it is grievous in the present day to find, that the General As sembly should, notwithstanding this admonition, think that they were entitled, as a Church, to repose an uncontrolled power of rejection in their people, in the conviction that human nature might be safely relied upon for the right exercise of that power, and that they were warranted to trust to the due influence of the pious motives which they here recommend and enjoin : — nay, so well entitled to rely on the existence and influence of that spirit throughout all the parishes in Scotland, as to hold it Improper to Inquire Into and ascertain, upon due allegations, the existence of those motives and practices which the Church declared ought to disable individuals from conscientiously re jecting the presentee. The individual might be rejected, owing to the influence of the causes adverted to — notorious to the Presbytery — creating a scandal in the Church — encouraging similar Instances else where — excluding a faithful pastor: — Yet the Church Is not to inter fere ; Her superintendence of her people is, in this respect, to be suspended. Her discipline and jurisdiction in abeyance : in this par ticular. Inquiry and censure are to be silent : The people have a right, for which they are not accountable to the Church : And the latter has told them, that they are Irresponsible, and that the Church is not to inquire into their proceedings. * Acts of Assembly, 1835, p. 32. 46 That any such procedure as a Veto had at any time, under the pre sent constitution of the Church, or indeed even when patronage was, by the act 1690, transferred to heritors and elders, been known or prac tised, was never seriously alleged. Whatever may be said as to the ' fundamental principle' of non-intrusion against the will of the peo ple, having been asserted by the clergy at different periods, it cannot be disputed by any one acquainted with the history of Scotland, (inde pendent of the weight due to the concurrent opinions of the Court and House of Lords), that a power on the part of a majority of a congrega tion, to reject peremptorily, and as matter of absolute right, the patron's presentee, was perfectly new. But it may be satisfactory to your Lordship to know the progress of the discussion (limited to two years) which gave rise to the act of 1834. And it is equally curious and instructive to see how speedily, in the course of agitation, the minds of able and intelligent men become re conciled to the maintenance of notions and plans, which, when first propounded, they considered as both novel and extravagant. In 1832, the notion of a Veto was a perfect novelty to Lord Moncreiff, who, in 1834, moved in the Assembly the law and regulations which I have already quoted and referred to. In the year 1832 it was first resolved to revive the old questions in the Church as to the concurrence or consent on the part of the people by a Call to the intended pastor, which should be required before a presentee was settled ; and a number of propositions or overtures were sent to the Assembly by different Presbyteries respecting calls, (the dis tinction between which and the Veto all churchmen now admit). After some discussion, a motion was made for a committee to consider these proposals.* The great bulk of them suggested plans or expressed opi nions tending to require express concurrence by a call, as necessary to constitute the pastoral relation ; and the debate turned on the propriety and expediency of new regulations as to calls, for that purpose. One gentleman, (my friend Mr. Whlgham), predicting with great sagacity what would be the result if such schemes were countenanced, argued that the tendency of the proposals and of the speeches went much further ; that either a Veto or abolition if patronage must fol low from the sentiments expressed, however such results might then be disclaimed. Lord Moncreiff spoke shortly at the close of the debate ; stated that it would have been a great relief to his mind if he could be relieved from the necessity of considering these overtures, but being sent up to the Assembly, they must be considered ; that he thought Mr. Whigham's argument misplaced, as no such objects as either a Veto or abolition of patronage were in view : and that his account of the objects of the several Presbyteries was exaggerated, and went on thus : — ' What is the next point in his speech "^ He said that those * Report of Debate, 24th May 1832. Whyte, Edinburgh; Long man, London. ¦ *7 < who wished to remit these overtures to a committee maintained that 'there is or ought to be a veto In the majority of the congregation. / ' have not heard this maintained.'"* (Mr. Whigham here said, ' Look at the overture from Auchterarder.') Lord Moncreiff continued : — ' Sir, the overture from Auchterarder ' may go further than the others ; but the question before the House ' is not whether you approve of that or not. The proposition main- ' tained is this, that we shall take the subject of the overtures into con- ' sideration ; and considering it to be of Importance, as recommended ' by the Synods and Presbyteries, appoint a committee to report, and ' that another Assembly shall afterwards determine upon the effect of ' the whole. The real proposition maintained, and the only one that ' can be maintained, is this, (a very plain proposition surely), that ' that which is the law (alluding to calls) shall he put in force ; and ' I humbly think, that in order to determine this, it is very unneces- ' sary to go back to the details of the origin of the rights of patronage.' And then followed, not an argument, — for his Lordship said he meant to reserve his opinion, — but his doubts whether, to some extent, consent or concurrence at and by the call was not required, and still necessary, notwithstanding the act of Queen Anne: — Concluding, however, with again declaring, that it would have been more satisfactory had the question not been raised. The political agitations of 1832, which created so much restlessness in the minds of people on all subjects, seemed to produce a correspond ing fever for agitation among members and especially the ministers of the Church, and a restless desire that something must be done in the Church — a notion that a new order of things was necessary. And the advisers of the government of that day seemed to think, that popularity would be gained if they signalized themselves by encouraging such changes. Dr. Chalmers has announced (in the recent debate in the last Assembly) ' that his Majesty's law officer in Scotland,' meaning, I presume, Mr. Solicitor-General Cockburn, who was a member of As sembly and voted for his motion, — was a party to the preparation of the measure which he brought forward in May 1 833 ; and that his own conviction of the incompetency of that measure on the part of the Esta blishment, in reference to the law of the land, was overborne by that high authority. On the importance of this acknowledgment of Dr. Chalmers's own opinion, I shall afterwards make a remark. The terms of Dr. Chalmers's motion in 1833 are very singular, when contrasted with the subsequent Veto carried in 1834, and the recent proceedings of the Assembly in regard to the Veto. The contrast will shew how singularly the views of parties in the Assembly vary in a short time on the nature and extent of the ' fundamental principle' for which they are contending, and as to the rights of the people on Report, p. 90, of debate in Assembly, 24th May 1832. 48 the one hand, and the duty of the Church on the other, respecting the settlement of ministers* Dr. Chalmers's motion in 1833 was, ' That the General Assembly having maturely weighed and considered the various overtures now be fore them, do find and declare that it is, and has been ever since the Reformation, a fixed principle in the law of this Church, that no mi nister shall be intruded into any pastoral charge contrary to the will of the congregation ; and considering that doubts and misapprehen sions have existed on this important subject, whereby the just and- salutary operation of the said principle has been impeded, and In- many cases defeated, the General Assembly further declare it to be their opinion, that the dissent of a majority of the male heads of families resident within the parish, being members of the congrega tion, and in communion with the Church at least two years previous to the day of moderation, whether such dissent shall be expressed or without the assignment of reasons, ought to be of conclusive effect In setting aside the presentee, (under the patron's nomination), save and EXCEPT where it is clearly established by the patron, presentee, or any of the minority, that the said dissent 'k founded in corrupt and mali cious combination, 01 not truly founded in any objection personal to the presentee, in regard to his ministerial gifts or qualifications, either in general, or with reference to that particular parish ; and in order that this dealaration may be carried into full effect, that a com mittee shall be appointed to prepare the best measure for carrying it into effect accordingly, and to report to the next General Assembly.' Your Lordship will at once perceive the great and essential distinc tion between this motion and the Veto act of next year, which we are now told the Church must enforce and adhere to, as part of its unques tioned constitution — enforce and adhere to, in Its terms, to its full ex tent, without inquiry as to the grounds on which the people (it maybe, communicants only of a few weeks' standing), exercise their irresponsi ble right of rejection. The right and duty of the Presbytery to inquire into the grounds of the objections was (though awkwardly, yet to a con siderable extent) .saved by the motion of 1833. The power and duty of the Church to ascertain whether there was truly any. objection personal to the presentee, either in general or for that particular parish, was pre served, if the matter were stated and proved to them. Observe the importance oHhsit principle (for surelyitis matter of deep principle) of distinction between the view taken In 1833 by the author of the Veto, respecting the relative position of the Church to the people, and of the latter to the patron and presentee, and the view on which the motion of 1834 was framed. That ' the dissent was not truly founded « in any objection personal to the presentee, in regard to his ministerial ' gifts or qualifications, either in general or in reference to that particu- ' lar parish.' What a distinction here ! What a reservation of the * Report of Debate, May 23, 1833. Edinburgh, Hamilton ; Lon don, Simpkin and Marshall. 49 duty and province of the Church ! How different from an absolute right to reject, without the competency of inquiry into the grounds or motives of the rejection ! Again, this motion allowed it to be proved, that the dissent was founded in corrupt and malicious combination, — an inquiry which would have struck at scenes of caballing and canvassing, to which, in the note to his speech in last Assembly, Dr. Chalmers again reverts, as very likely to occur, and which, he says, ought to lead to the dis franchising the whole parish. I shall have occasion, in a subsequent branch of the Letter, to give an illustration of the importance of such a check in an instance which has already occurred- Honestly and fairly interpreted, this proviso would have been a great practical check on the exercise of the power then proposed to be be stowed on the people. And on the other, the knowledge of the ex istence of this power of review would have operated beneficially on the spirit in which the dissent would have been exercised. While the publicity attending inquiry before theChurch Courts, the right of appeal from the decision of the Presbytery to the Synod or to the Assembly, and the controul of public feeling against unjust decisions in the case of meritorious individuals, would have secured, to a considerable ex tent, the Church and the interests of religion against the risk of many unjust and capricious rejections. The importance of this proviso and of the principle on which it pro ceeds, is manifest. The real meaning and principle of themotlon with this proviso, was well explained by Lord Moncreiff in the debate (p. 134) to be this : — ' The ' principle seems to me to be, that the Presbytery itself, looking solely to ' the spiritual interest of the parish, and the good of the Church, are to ' take the matter of the dissent or dissatisfaction of the people into consi- ' deration ; and if it be such as to raise a certainty or strong probability ' that the man, however well qualified for other situations, will not be a ' useful minister for that parish, to Hold him as on that account unfitted ' for it, and prevent his intrusion into it. Doubts and difficulties In this ' may be raised in cases where there is division or difference of opinion. ' But the principle will be clearly seen, if the case be supposed, that ' not a majority merely, but the whole congregation, without one ex- ' ception, declare that they cannot accept of the presentee for their mi- ' nlster. The ecclesiastical rule is, that he shall not be intruded on ' them contrary to their will ; and the only practical question which ' remains is, what shall be considered as a sufficient expression of the ' will of the congregation generally against the presentee ? Now, If ' this restraining principle can be made operative at all, 1 ask how it ' can be so, otherwise than by giving effect to the will of the people ' negatively, in some manner expressed, and how it can be doubted that ' the General Assembly has power to declare what shall be considered as ' sufficient evidence of such being the will or sense of the congregation .?' Again, p. 135, — ' The meaning here is perfectly plain and simple, ' The dissent of the majority shall be ta,ken as conclusive, without ne- ' cessity of their stating or verifying specific objections, unless it be 50 ' proved against them that they are not truly and honestly acting on a ' real dissatisfaction with the man as a minister for that parish, but ' are moved by other motives and unfair designs. It is in this point ' precisely in conformity to what I conceive to be the clear meaning ' and effect of the act 1649. But, at any rate, there can be no dlffi- ' culty In understanding what is intended by It ; and it will be observ- ' ed, that the words are not conjunctive,hvit alternative, either founded ' in malicious combination^ or not truly founded in objections to the ' ministerial fitness of the presentee. It is true that the onus is thrown ' on the other party ; and it has been said that this is a heavy onus. ' I grant that it Is so. It is not meant to be a very easy onus, by ' which the dissent of the majority of the congregation Is to be over- ' come ; but the clause is nevertheless extremely important to meet ' the cases wh'ich may easily he conceived,' (! ! — what an important and instructive admission ; how prophetic as to the necessity of the admoni tion in 1835) — ' oi groundless and unfair opposition, originating in ' the desire of serving another candidate, or directed to iiery different ' ends from the satisfactory settlement of the parish.' The evils which in 183-3 it was so easy to conceive. Lord Moncreiff left without a remedy in 1834. The power, on which in 1833 it was so ' extremely important' to impose this great practical check, he bestowed in the latter year, in the most absolute and irresponsible form. Is the Church entitled to demand from the State, that that is to be deemed matter of right which, in 1833, the Church itself held to be subject to any controul they chose to Impose — it being matter of ex pediency what the controul should be ? Clear it is, that the judgments of Presbyteries, — honestly doing their duty under this motion of 1833, according to the real justice or exigency of each case, and the degree of partiality or improper motives mingling in the motives leading to rejection ; — according to the necessity which, in any case, or at any particular turn of religious opinions or popular errors, might require the Interposition of the Church Courts, would have imposed an important restraint through the medium of the Church courts, on unreasonable and capricious rejection by the people of individuals, against whom no objection truly lay. The Church courts would have been entitled to inquire (on a complaint that the rejection was not well founded,) what the grounds of objection really were. If none could be stated or explained to them, personal to the presentee ; none to ministerial gifts and qualifications, — matters which imply in quiry and trial and judgment by the Church courts, — then the Veto was not Intended to be a bar to his appointment. On referring to the evidence given before the Patronage Committee of the House of Commons in .spring 1 834, it will be seen that several leading members of the Church advocating these or corresponding changes, expressed their decided opinion, that this proviso in Dr. Chalmers's motion of 1833, was an important and necessary restraint upon a power which ought not to be bestowed without such check. And when we are called upon now to acknowledge that, according to a fundamental principle of the Church of Scotland, the majority 51 of the communicants of a congregation are entitled to reject a pre sentee, simply and solely because they do not like him, — that it is in consistent with the rights of the Christian people to require them to justify in any circumstances a rejection of the presentee, for which their dislike Is both a sufficient, and, on religious grounds, a conclusive rea son, — it is at least satisfactory to know that the very year before this motion was carried, Dr Chalmers himself had proposed and contem plated, as a necessary and constitutional ecclesiastical check on the ex ercise of any such privilege by'the members of a congregation, that the Church courts should, upon objection offered, ascertain whether there really existed, after all, any objection personal to the presentee, — any ob jection to ministerial gifts or qualifications, — or whether the ground of rejecti n was not unreasonable, as regarded the individual, or originat ed in a desire for some other person, or in an objection to any appoint. ment by a patron. The motion of Dr. Chalmers In 183.3, was founded on a principle totally opposed to the Veto law of 1834. It took a different view of the duties and functions of Presbyteries ; — it did not acknowledge any absolute right on the part of the people to reject, without reference to the opinion of the Presbytery as to the grounds of such rejection ; — it did not propose that the Church should legislate on the estimate of human nature, on which the law of 1834 was Iramed. The two schemes are totally different. Dr. Chalmers, in bis speech in last Assembly, In the course of com menting on my argument In the Auchterarder Case, says, ' Now, If ' there be one thing of which we are more confident than another, it is, ' that here we have all philosophy upon our side, and all that is sound ' in the experience of human nature. Not in Christianity alone, but ' in a thousand other subjects of human thought, there may be antipathies ' and approvals resting on a most solid and legitimate foundation, not ' properly therefore without reasons, but reasons deeply felt, yet incu- * pahle of being adequately vomnmuicofed. And if there be one topic ' more than another on which this phenomenon of the human spirit ' should be most frequently realized, it is the topic of Christianity — a ' religion the manifestation of whose truth is unto the conscience ; * and the response or assenting testimony to which, as an object of in^ ' stant discernment, might issue from the deep recesses of their moral ' nature on the part of men with whom it is a felt reality, able there- ' fore to articulate their belief, yet not able to articulate the reasons for 'it' Whether there Is really any smmd philosophy, or rather, as /should say, any sound principle of Christian doctrine, in admitting that the people — who are to be instructed, warned, reproved, and incited to re pentance by the ministers of the gospel, as the amiinssadors of its Divine Author, do, in the opinion of the Church, possess (to the extent which the power given by the Veto implies) such a discernment of and love for gospel truth, that they will never reject a faithful, pious, and zeal ous preacher, and never reject except from pious and proper motives ; 52 — whether, in acting on this estimate of ' the hearers of the word,' there is either sound philosophy or sound Christian doctrine, I shall afterwards consider. But if there is any false philosophy or false Christianity in the notion that congregations, — being in the view of the gospel and of the Church, composed of corrupt and sinful men, — to whom the truth is often unpalatable, in whom spiritual or intellectual pride is most likely both to be cherished and indulged, when desired and encouraged to sit in judg-* ment on the qualifications of their proposed ministers, as better qualified to decide than even the ministers of the Church ; — with whom an infinity of worldly motives may operate, when such a point Is submitted to num» bers, affected, as it may be, by dislike to the individual or to the law which admits of a patron's nomination, or by desire for anotherperson,^by the desire to exercise irresponsible power, — 'by the affectation of exhibit ing discernment and preference in the act of rejecting at least the first person presented to them, and not just registering the patron's choice as that which is to suit them; — if there is false philosophy or felse Christianity in supposing that, when entrusted with such power, without controul or responsibility, and without being called on to explain or justify their objections, men in general (for one may speak of the majority of congregations) are very likely to err, and very likely to be swayed by prejudice, and to commit injustice — at least the motion in 1 833 of Dr. Chalmers shows that he then thought there was good ground for sub jecting these vague and indefinite repugnancies of congregations to the judgment and investigation and decision of the Church courts. And I think there is little difference, in point of philosophy, between the ex» pressions of counsel to which he refers, and his own motion in 1833, though he forgets that /was disputing that sound law admitted of these vague repugnancies, while he, going far beyond his original motion, is now defending them on the wider ground of ' sound philosophy.' In the Appendix I have inserted the counter declaration, as exposi tory of the law and constitution of the Church, which Dr. Cook moved and carried in 1833, in order to record the views as to the powers and duties of Presbyteries, in regard to the trial of and objections to presen tees, on which be and those who for eighty years and more, had guided the deliberations of the Church, had conducted her deliberations and advised her judgments, (often, of course, with difference of opinion as to the propriety of the decision in the individual case:) — And I should wish any impartial observer of human nature, any one sincerely impressed with a sense of the erring motives which bias and influence human ac tions, and of the Importance of securing learning, talent, and indepen dent character from the effect of prejudice or unfair opposition, to say, what greater or more effectual system of examination, or what better security against improper nomination could be devised, with a view to the selection of pious, able, and qualified persons, than this system en sured : — Or whether a rejection by numbers, without cause or reason as signed, of the person named by the party authorised and entrusted by law to nominate and present, (for that is the law to which the Veto ap plies,) — a rejection which excludes the power of the Church courts to 53 consider the fitness of the person presented,— is more likely to lead to a sound, judicious, and discriminating choice of ministers. The Veto act, however, as passed in the subsequent year, lays aside, nay, treats as unwarrantable and Inquisitorial, — as inconsistent either with the duties of Presbyteries or the rights of congregations, — the no tion that the will and decision of the latter should in any case, if ex pressed by a majority, be reviewed or inquired into by the wisdom ahd authority and experience of the Church, and gives, as we have seen, the power of peremptory rejection, as a matter of right, of sacred church principle, forming part (forsooth) at all times of the constitution of the Churiih of Scotland. The Veto act of the Assembly of 1834 directs that Presbyteries, before taking the presentee on trials and judging of his qualifications, shall ascertain if the congregation choose to accept the person presented by the patron or not ; and if the majority of the male heads of families, (a new ' standing' in the Church), being communicants, reject him, then the Presbytery, as a matter of cotirse, are to refuse to take him on trials, and to reject him at once, and to intimate the rejection to the patron. The statute 1-592, establishing Presbytery as the Church polity of the national Church of Scotland, — the great charter of the Church, — de clares,* ' And therefore ordains, all presentations to benefices to be di- ' rect to the particular presbyteries in all time coming, ir/'ith full power 'to give collation thereupon; and to put ordour to all matters and ' causes ecclesiasticall within their boundes, according to the discipline ' of the kirk ; providing the foresaid presbyteries be bound dhd as- ' tticted to receive and admit quhatsumever qudlified ministei' present- ' ed be his majesty or laick patrones.' The Act 171 1, of the British Parliament, (repealing a Scdtch sta tute which had established a different mode of nomination, )-f provides and enacts ' That in all time coming, the right of all and evfery patron ' or patrons to the presentation of ministers to churches and benefices, ' and the disposing of the vacant stipends for pious uses within the ' parish, be *estoi(-ed, settled, and confirmed to them, the aforesaid acts, ' or any other act, statute, or custom to the contrary in anywi^4 not- ' withstanding ; and that from and after the first day of May I712, it 'shall and may be lawful for her majesty, her heirs and successors, and ' for every other person or persons who have right to any patronage or ' patronages of any church or churches whatsoever in that part of Great ' Britain called Scotland, (a)nd who have not made and subscribed a ' formal renunciation thereof under their hands) to present a qualified * 1592. Report, vol. ii. App. p. 8. — The statutes are here quoted for the sake of reference, — of course I have no intention of discussing any legal point decided by the House of Lords. t App. p. 13. 54 ' minister or ministers to any church or churches whereof they are pa- ' trons, which shall, after the said first day of May, happen to be va- ' cant ; and the Presbytery of the respective bounds shall, and is here- ' by obliged to receive and admit in the same manner such qualified ' person or persons, minister or ministers, as shall be presented by the ' respective patrons, as the persons or ministers presented before themak- ' ing of this act ought to have been admitted.' How it could be considered within the competency of the National Church, instituted and regulated by these statutes, of itself to bestow on any third party, on the communicants, a right peremptorily to reject the presentee (though qualified) whom the patron might present, and to refuse to take such person on trials, so as to form their own opinion as to his qualifications, does appear most extraordinary to any one re viewing the progress of this singular epoch in the history of an Estab lished Church. To your Lordship, on whom, in conjunction with Lord Brougham, devolved the responsibility of advising the judgment of the House of Lords, which finally, and in the last resort, decided that such a measure by the General Assembly was incompetent and illegal, it will be some satisfaction, after having honestly and assiduously directed your mind to the consideration of this important constitutional question, to know that Dr. Chalmers has announced to us that his own deliberate and decided opinion as a Churchman was, and continued to be, that the Church had not, as an Estahlishment, the right and power to effect, by its own authority, the change he devised even by his modified motion of 1833, and that even then the Church was bound to apply to Parlia ment to introduce or sanction the change. Another speaker (Dr. Burns) in support of the motion of this year, declared that he never had a doubt that, in the actual state of the law, the decision of the Court must be what it was ; and in his evidence before the Patronage Committee of the House of Commons in the spring of 1834, stated that conviction. There were many other Churchmen who, like Dr. Chalmers, held the same opinions, but who probably yielded their own views in deference to Dr. Chalmers hlm.self Dr. Chalmers, it has been already noticed, has publicly stated in the recent debate in the General Assembly, that the plan of the Veto act was arranged with the Law Officer of the crown under Lord Grey's go vernment, and that though himself impressed with the conviction that it was beyond the power of the General Assembly, he was urged and encouraged to bring it forward by his advice and opinion. The statement thus made by Dr. Chalmers opens up a singular view of the policy, which, with a view to temporary popularity, or for the purpose of signalizing the new era in Scotland, by the intro duction of changes in the Church as extensive as those effected in the State, did not scruple to urge on Dr. Chalmers to measures from which he shrunk, and which nothing in the state of the Church in any degree required. Dr. Chalmers's speech In 1833, in introducing the proposal of a veto, seemed fully to admit, that at no period of the Church had patronage been so well exercised, and the causes of com- 55 plaint been so few, — that there was in fact no call in the circumstances of the Church for any such change ; and one-half of his speech was an earnest defence of patronage, and a powerful and most emphatic denun ciation, — perhaps one of the most effective and most elaborate efforts of his masterly mind, — of the evils of the popular election, and of the mis chievous practices which it would open up to the ' village demagogue.' The members of Assembly who heard the speech must well recollect the surprise which this part of it occasioned, containing, as it did, an answer to the very proposal with which he concluded. But his ac knowledgment that he was overborne, as to that measure, by the opinions and intentions of others, and had brought forward a measure which he has admitted he did not think the Church could competently pass, and which of necessity, therefore, was no part of the constitution of the Church of Scotland, sufficiently explains the singular contrast between his speech and his motion. Notwithstanding the opinion which Dr. Chalmers has told us he expressed to his coadjutors in supporting the motion in 1833 and carrying through the Veto act of 1834, a delusion seems to have had possession of the minds of its other promoters, as to the utter impos sibility of the legality of the measure ever being tried in a court of law. The General Assembly was well warned of the hazardous nature of •the game they were about to play, and of the certainty of involving themselves in legal discussions as to the incompetency of the measures they were about, in so precipitate a manner, to sanction. The two Heads of the Supreme Courts, members of the Assembly, expressed their opinions against the legality, as recorded by their votes, of the measures. Many other lawyers gave the same advice. And, regard ing the measure of 1834 as alike mischievous and illegal, I rejoice that my last act as a member of Assembly was to record, in my pro test, reasons of dissent, which, so far as they related to the legality of the measure in a constitutional light, the judgments of the Court of Session and House of Lords have in express terms affirmed, and which, as regarded the practical working of the measure, have been already but too faithfully realized. In spite of every warning, the Assembly plunged into this most seri ous and difficult and complicated measure, in the persuasion apparently that no one was to question its legality, or to oppose its operation. Lamentable and unaccountable delublon ! The summer of 1834 gave rise to several rejections, marking, in the most unequivocal manner, the gross injustice and cruel caprice with which this irresponsible power of rejection, — shielded as it was from all blame, by being referred to the conscience of every man, as the only judge (in the opinion of the Church itself) of the manner in which it is exercised, — would be em ployed. Among others, the presentee to Auchterarder, — possessing the high est testimonials from the Presbytery which had licensed him, and 56 wh^re h^ t;fd o£^ci^ted, — being thus vetoed, raj^ed an action, in con- Jiinqtipi> ^ith the patron, against the Presbytery. Th^t 8,ction cpn^ained the following conclusions, in terms of which f Jie pursjiers asked for d,e,cree :* — ' ThereforjB, it ought and should be fouii^ ' and declared, by decree of the Lords of our Council and Session, that ' the pursuer, the said Robej-t Young, has been Ipgally, validly, an4 ' effectually presented to the church and parish of Auchterarder i That |;he presbytery of Auchterarder, and the individual members thereof, ^s ' the only legal and competent court to that effect by law constituted, ' were bound and astricted to make trial of the qualifications of th,e pi;r- • suer, and are still bound so to do ; and if in their judgment, aftpir dvif ' trial apd examination, the pursuer is found qualified, the said Pres- ' hytery are bound and astricted to receive ^pd admit the pursuer as ' minister of the church and pafish of Auchterarfier, according to law : ' That the rejection of the pursuer by the said Presbytery, as presentee ' foresaid, without making trial of his qualifications in competent and ' legal form, and without any objections havipg been stated to his qua- ' lifications, or against his admission as minister of the church and ' parish of Auchterarder, and expressly on the ground that the said ' Presbytery cannot, and ought not to do so, in respect of a veto of the ' parishioners, was illegal, and injurious to the patrimonial rights of the ' pursuer, and contrary to the provisions of the statutes and laws libelled.' The Cojirt of Session pronounced the following judgment (the case haying been decided by the whole Court ):f ' Ediiiburgtf., March % ' 1838-- — The Lojds of the First Division having considered the casps ' for the Earl of JClnnouU and the Rev. Robert Young, and for thje ' Presbytery of Auchterarder, with the record and productions, and the ' additional plea in defence admitted to the record, and heard counsel ' for the said parties a* great length, in presence of the judges of the S^- ' cond pivision and Lords Ordinary, and having heard the opinions qf ' said jvidges, they, in terras of the opinions of the majority of the judges, ' repel the objections to the jurisdiction of the Court, and to thecompe- ' tency of the actlpn as directed against the Presbytery : Further, repel ' the plea in defence of acquiescence : Find, That the Earl of Kinupull ' has legally, validly, and effectually exercised his right as Patron pf ' the church and parish of Auchterarder, by presenting the piirsuer, the ' said Robert Yoking, to the said church and parish : Finds, That the ' defenders, the Presbytqry of Auchterarder, di4 refuse, and continue to ' refuse, to take trial of the qualifications of the said Robert Yovmg, *nd ' have rejected hitn as presentee to the said church and parish, on the ' sole ground (as they admit on the record) that a majority of the mfiie ' heads of families, communicants, In the said parish, have dissented, ' without any reason assigned, from his admission as minister : Find, ' That the said Presbytery, In so doing, have acted to the hurt and * Appendix, p. 10, Report, vol. i. -|- Report, vol. 11. p. 450. 57 prejudice of the said pursuers, illegally, and in violation of their duty, and contrary to the provisions of the statutes libelled on ; and, in particular, contrary to the provisions of the statute, 10th Anne, c. 12, entituled, " An act to restore Patrons to their ancient rights of pre- ' senting ministers to the churches vacant, in that part of Great Bri- ' tain called Scotland ;" in so far repel the defences stated on the part of the Presbytery, and decern and declare accordingly ; and allow the above decree to go out and be extracted as an interim decree ; and with these findings and declarations, remit the process to the Lord Ordinary to proceed further therein, as he shall see just.' The judgment of the Court having been intimated to the Presbytery on the part of Mr. Young, in order to require them to comply with the same, they referred the matter to the General Assembly, to meet in May 1838, for advice and direction ; and the Assembly resolved to appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lords, after most ample arguments, affirmed the judg ment of the Court of Session, — your Lordship and Lord Brougham declaring, that you had never entertained a doubt upon the point. To complete this part of the narrative, I may mention that much was said as to the Court of Session not having pronounced judgment, in terms of another part of the conclusion of the summons. ' That the ? Presbytery, as the only legal and competent court to that effect, by law ' constituted, were bound andastricted to make trialqfthe qualifications ' oi the pursuer, and are still bound so to do; and if in their judgment, ' after due trial and exam'mation, the pursvier is fottnd qualified, the said ' Presbytery are bound and astricted to receive andadmit the pursuer as * minister of the church and parish of Auchterarder, according to law.' The reason was plain. It was not to be presumed, that after the Supreme Court had declared the rejection, without trial, to be illegal, contrary to the statutes, and wrongfully in violation of their duty, it could be necessary, in a question with a Church Court in the present age, to proceed further. It was fitting and proper to presume that they would at once repair the wrong they had done, and fulfil the requisites of the statutes thus authoritatively declared. It was very plain to any one who attentively considered the ground of the judgment, whether as stated in the Court of Session or in the House of Lords, that a judg ment to the effect of the conclusion already quoted would follow as a matter of course, if the Presbytery refused to obey the judgment on the points already determined. True, it was said that the Court of Session durst not go further, nay, that they had refused to go further ; and that this part of the Summons was no longer open to the pursuers. It is sufficient to say, that the pursuers (after getting the judgment of the House of Lords applied), moved the Lord Ordinary to pronounce decree in terms of the above conclusion oi the Summons as a necessary conclusion from the judgment of the House of Lords ; and that the Presbytery did not venture to oppose that demand. The judge accordingly found, decerned, and declared (in terms of the Summons), that the Presbytery are still bound and astricted to make 58 trial of Mr. Young's qualifications, and if, in their judgment, after trial and examination In common form, he shall he found to be quali fied, to receive and admit him as minister of the church and parish,; to which he has been presented according to law. \ In order that your Lordship may be fully aware of the spirit in which these proceedings of the Church were conducted, and of the sys tematic determination to exercise and assume power, (without regard to any impediments or legal restraints whatever), in order to establish the supremacy of ecclesiastical authority over every other, I must now ad vert to some very remarkable proceedings, which have been going on during the progress of the Auchterarder Case, and which illustrate more forcibly than even the Auchterarder Case, the extremes to which the pretensions of the Church will carry them, — the practical conse quences of their claims for Independent jurisdiction, — and the encroach ments on private right, the disregard of civil tribunals, and the con sequent confusion and disorder, to which these claims necessarily lead. In 1835, an application was made to the Crown, (the Patron), by the late Incumbent of the parish of Lethendy, with the concurrence of the heritors and the parish generally, for an Assistant and Successor. And he applied for the appointment of the gentleman acting as his assistant. This application was supported by a petition signed by 107 male heads of families and communicants. The Crown appointed the individual in question in the usual style and form. The Presby--" tery concurred in the arrangement, which, as there was no actual va cancy, they might have refused to do, and ' sustained the presentation' in favour of Mr. Clark, the gentleman in question. The total roll of com municants seems to have been reduced in numbers below IO7, by the time the Presbytery came to apply the veto, — the person applied for being ve toed by 5-J, (being an actual majority), of which nximher forty had ap plied in thepetitiorifor his appointment . Various proceedings took place in the Church Courts. The old Incumbent died In January 1837. On the 11th of March, the gentleman (Mr. Clark) holding the Crown presentation, raised an action (the same as in the Auchterarder Case) against the Presbytery of Dunkeld, &c. The Crown was not call ed ; for nothing, of course, could apprise him that the Crown, after granting a presentation in his favour, would or could interfere in the matter, much less, during the dependence of the Auchterarder Case, assume the legality and competency of the Veto. But, on th* 12th of June 1837, , another presentation was actually granted by the Crown in favour of another person, during the dependance of the action, to try the rights of the first presentee by the Crown, Whe ther this was deliberately and advisedly done on the part of the advisers of the Crown is not known, I should think that the circumstance of Mr. Clark's action could not have been known. If it was, the proceed ing was most extraordinary and unexampled ; and this, probably inad vertent, certainly ill-timed, presentation, was immediately misunderstood and misrepresented, — was held forth as if the crown, In the full know- i 59 I jedge of the state and whole bearings of this great constitutional ques tion respecting the Church, had deliberately resolved to maintain and enforce the Veto act, so far as in their power ; and the Presbyteries throughout the country, and the next Assembly, were induced and taught to believe, that they had thus this source of support and encour agement in the measures they subsequently adopted, and this ground of expectation that the judgment of the Court would be reversed. The Presbytery held a meeting, (summoned not in the usual man ner), to expedite the settlement of the new presentee, and, by a ma jority, resolved to proceed, notwithstanding the dependance of Mr. Clark's action, to appoint this second presentee (Mr. Kessen) to preach as soon as possible.* As soon as Mr. Clark got notice of these proceedings, he applied for and obtained (August 7) 1837) an Interdict (or Injunction) restrain ing and prohibiting the Presbytery from giving effect to the second presentation ; and also against Mr. Kessen, from claiming any secular benefit under the same. The Presbytery then appeared, and declined the jurisdiction of the civil Court ' in a question entirely of an ecclesiastical nature,' — though the short notice. In which this plea was stated, proceeded upon the state ment, that Mr. Kessen had a valid, regular, and effectual presentation from the Crown, under which they were entitled and bound to proceed, while Mr. Clark had not ; — questions wholly of civil right in any point of view. In defiance of the interdict, the Presbytery proceeded with Mr. Kes- sen's trials. Mr. Kessen then appeared in the declarator raised by Mr. Clark ; and both he and the Presbytery appeared in the further dis cussion as to the interdict, maintaining that it should be recalled. The Presbytery then thinking it more prudent that their proceed ings should be backed by the Assembly, referred the case to the latter body, meeting in May 1838, for advice as to the course they should follow. The matter was handed over to the Commission. The Commission of Assembly approved of the conduct of the Pres bytery, and resolved, ' That admission to the pastoral oh', rge of a parish • and congregation is entirely an ecclesiastical act, subject to the juris- ' diction of the ecclesiastical Courts ; ordain the Presbytery of Dun- ' keld to proceed without delay to the induction oi the Reverend ' Andrew Kessen, to be minister of the united Parishes of Lethendy ' and Kinloch, upon the call in his favour, acno-ding to the rules of * the Church, and to re])ort their diligence thertin to the meeting of ' Commission in August ; and, quoad ultra, supersede consideration of ' the matters brought up by the reference till the said meeting of Com- ' mission, or the next stated meeting thereafter.'^f* Your Lordship will at once perceive the extraordinary character of * See Report of Lethendy Case, by Mr. C. Gordon Robertson, ad vocate Blackwood, Edin. 1839- t 30th May 1838. Report, p, 12. 60 this proceeding, marking so forcibly the practical consequences of thg views as to ecclesiastical authority and independence, on which the Church is beginning to act. An interdict had been granted against the Presbytery giving effed to the presentation in favour of Mr. Kessen, during the depend ance of the action raised against them. Whatever may be the questions involved in that action, it was one regularly in Court. Mr. Kessen claimed the benefit of a deed of presentation in his favour ; he appeared as a presentee. The interdict was granted against the Presbytery pro ceeding to give effect to that, and against Mr. Kessen claiming the stipend, manse, or glebe, or taking any step for any of the temporali ties of the benefice. Yet the Commission of Assembly voted this (for such was practically the resolution, though purposely put in an ab stract form) to be an ecclesiastical matter, and ordained the Presbytery to proceed (! !) to induct Mr. Kessen, and that, forsooth, too, (so dis ingenuously was the matter stated), upon the call in his favour, as if they did not proceed upon the presentation, (the civil title,) ox as if they were already prepared to throw aside patronage altogether- Mr. Kes sen was merely a presentee, claiming the benefit of patronage, and therefore to say that they meant to settle him on the call, as if the Crown had forfeited its turn to present, was a miserable disguise. Mr. Clark immediately applied for and obtained* another Interdict, (to prevent all doubt as to the meaning of the first) ' to prohibit and interdict the said Reverend Andrew Kessen from presenting himself to the said Presbytery for induction to the office of the minister of the Church and united Parishes of Lethendy and Kinloch, upon the pretence of the alleged call in his favour, or on any other ground whatever ; and likewise to prohibit and interdict the said Presbytery, and the said William Chalmers, Thomas Nelson, John Stewart, William Grant, Alexander Wilson, Michael Stirling, William Mac- Ritchie, Thomas Mac Ritchie, John Robb, Robert Allan, Henry Hen derson, Peter Drumraond, Duncan Campbell, William Herdman, and Francis Giilies, the individual members thereof foresaid, from inducting the said Rev. Andrew Kessen, upon the pretence of the alleged call in his favour, or on any other ground whatever, and from proceeding to his induction and settlement as minister of the Church and united Parishes of Lethendy and Kinloch, on any pretence whatever, and from doing any act or deed prejudicial to the status, rights, and privileges conferred on the complainer by the letter of presentation in his favour, and act of Church Court sustaining the same.'-f- The Presbytery referred the matter to the meeting of the Com mission of Assembly in August 1838, — The Commission then found, « That the supplementary interdict granted by the Court of Ses- « sion, at the instance of Mr. Thomas Clark, against the Presbytery ' carrying into execution the sentence of the Commission on the 30th * June 4. Report, p. 12. f Report, p. 13. 6i < day of May last, appointing them to induct Mr. Andrew Kessen to the pastoral charge of the said Parish, on the call in his favour, ought not to operate as any obstacle to their proceeding in the exe cution of the said sentence, but that it is their duty to carry the same into immediate effect, by the pel formance of what the Commis- s'lon have determined to be a purely spiritual act, and in regard to which the Civil Courts can possess no authority. The Commis sion accordingly instruct the Presbytery of Dunkeld to meet at Dun- .keld on Tuesday, the 21st day of August current, and take immediate steps for the ordination of the said Mr. Andrew Kessen, and proceed therewith without delay, in terms of the former sentence of Commis sion, and to report their diligence to the meeting of Commission In November '* The Commission further, on the motion of Mr. Dunlop, found, That the Commission having farther taken into consideration the matters brought up by the reference jremltted by the last General As sembly, left undisposed of by the former meeting of Commission, which regard the conduct of the said Mr. Thomas Clark, in institut ing legal proceedings, and applying for the first interdict against the Presbytery, and also his conduct In applying for the second interdict against carrying Into execution the sentence of the Commission, the Commission find, that while this last mentioned act on the part of the said Mr. Thomas Clark might be dealt with as affording grounds for a charge of a contempt of the Commission, it is more expedient that the proceedings to be adopted should bear refeience to the grave charges which his whole conduct involve ; and the Commission find that the several proceedings adopted by him, and above referred to, afford grounds for charging him with attempting to bring the juris diction of this Church under subjection to the civil power in matters spiritual, contrary to the doctrines of the independent spiritual juris diction of the Church, and of the sole headship of the Lord Jesus, on which the same depends, — in contravention of acts of the Assembly of this Church, — and in violation of his vows of submission, for the pur pose of intruding himself into the office of pastor of a congregation, contrary to the will of the people, in opposition to the fundamental principle of the Church on that subject ; and they remit to the Pres bytery of Dunkeld to hold conference with the said Mr. Thomas Clark, and in the event of his not evincing due penitence for his con duct, and withdrawing the legal proceedings instituted by him, to prepare a libel, charging him with the said iffences,'' (! !) ' and to serve him with the same; for which purpose, the Commission grant warrant to officers of Court, and all other Church officers, to cite the said Mr. Thomas Clark to compear personally before the said Presby tery, at their ordinary meeting at Dunkeld, on the last Tuesday of tliis current month of August, to be served with a libel, should he not shew such penitence, and withdraw his proceedings' (! i ) ' as aforesaid ; Report, p, 15. 62 ' Instructing the Presbytery, should he fail to appear, to proceed as is ' usual in cases of contumacy.* As yet the Presbytery have not ventured to proceed to deprive Mr. Clark of his status as a licentiate, or to punish him ecclesiastically for the offence of trying his rights and the extent of the power of the Church, iri a Court of Law. Probably it has been thought that such a violent proceeding might operate unfavourably on the public mind, un til the objects of the Church are fully gained, and their power recog nised. But the Presbytery, by a majority of one, proceeded in defiance of the Interdict, to settle and induct Mr. Kessen. Hence, though Mr. Clark should gain his law-suit, and although, therefore, so far as the power of the Crown was concerned, it should be found that it could give Mr. Kessen no title, the latter is inducted, and wrong of the grossest kind done to Mr. Clark ; or a still more serious question awaits the Presbytery — a reduction of their act of induction, as incompetent and illegal. Mr. Clark complained to the Court, of this breach of interdict, against Mr. Kessen and the majority of the Presbytery. The most necessary and important species of interdict or injunction is (as your Lordship well knows) that which Is granted to restrain and prevent, during the dependance of a law-suit between two parties, steps being taken by either, by which wrong (It may be, irremediable wrong)' may be done to the party who is ultimately successful. I In the main action the Court may find that It has no jurisdiction, or that the merits of Mr. Kessen is right, and that the case does not turn on that of Auchterarder. It may also find that the Interdict, which the Presbytery did not choose at first to oppose, ought not to have been applied for. But during the trial of such points, every system of '^vir'\s\)r\xdence provides for the means of preserving matters entire, if the Court thinks sufficient cause has been stated for such an injunc tion. I need not enlarge on the confusion to society, on the Injustice, on the Invasion of private rights that will ensue, if any Body in the state shall maintain and act on the plea, that even to this extent they will not obey the civil tribunals of the country — that its injuncHons cannot affect or restrain them — that they may in the meantime do the thing prohibited, by reason of their alleged right to judge for themselves what is civil and what ecclesiastical. Of all the points which have occurred in the course of these discus sions, this was the plainest and the clearest. Two of the judges, (Lords Moncreiff and Jeffrey) in considering what should be done on the complaint for breach of interdict, thought that they were entitled to consider the merits of the action, in respect of the dependance of which the interdict was granted ; and that, when a party Report, p. 16. 63 complained of a breach of such an interdict, the title of the party, and the merits of the main cause, were put in issue. But the rest of the Court, including Lords FuUerton and Cockburn, who had dissented from the decision in the Auchterarder case, had no difficulty in finding, that an interdict or injunction granted by the Supreme Court, must be enforced, and that the Presbytery were guilty of a breach of interdict. Both of the learned judges last alluded to pointed out, that Induction to a benefice must be considered as a different matter from ordination as a minister of the gospel, and concurred in holding, that the injunction against induction must be enforced, and, if violated, the contempt of it punished. The Presbytery and Mr. Kessen were ordered to attend at the bar of the Supreme Court, and were solemnly censured, as guilty of a breach of the Interdicts In question, — a sentence most lenient, as re spected the individuals, but marking the resolution of the Civil Court, — which was announced at the time of the censure, — to enforce obedience to the law, on any future occasion, in a very different manner.* On these proceedings, as illustrating the practical and most danger ous consequences of the principles respecting their independent juris diction, which the Church have proclaimed, and the alarming results to society at large which always follow from ecclesiastical usurpation, it is unnecessary to comment. The facts speak for themselves. It was a renewal of the ecclesiastical proceedings of former times — in their worst spirit and form — and aiming at authority and practical power as formidable as any ever claimed by the Church of Rome. In the present age, when such occurrences and pretensions are not an ticipated, one is at first indisposed to believe, that a religious body, whose duty in an especial manner it is to Inculcate and practise civil obedience, could have perceived the full consequence of their own pro ceedings, or the open and general disregard to all law which they in volve. But let it be remembered that there is no violation of law more marked or unequivocal, than wilfully setting at defiance an Interdict of the Supreme Court, on the assertion that law cannot affect or bind the body violating the Interdict. There is no state of things in the social system which can Indicate greater disorder or a more complete Jis- ruptlon of all the bonds and restraints of law, than such an occurrence. What is there which Ecclesiastical Courts in the present day can do beyond the defiance of an Interdict, and expressly directing, for the at tainment of their own ends, an act to be done in open violation of the de cree of the court enjoining the thing in the meantime not to be done ? What is there which In former times was done by ecclesiastical authori ties, proving more directly the resolution to put themselves above the law, and procure entire Immunity for the exercise of any power they choose to assume .'' * See Report. The opinion of the judges will be found to be most valuable to any one wishing to understand these questions. See p.irti- cularly the opinions of Lord Medwyn and Cunninghame. 6« In this state of matters, the General Assembly met in the month of May. The decision of the House of Lords on the appeal directed by ihe Church, necessarily forced itself upon their consideration. After previous notice, Dr. Cook introduced a motion, with a pre amble detailing the facts, to the effect, — ' That the act on calls, com- ' monly denominated the Veto act, having been thus declared by the- ' supreme civil tribunals of the country to Infringe on civil and pa- ' trimonlal rights, with which the Church has often and expressly re- ' quired that its judicatories should not intermeddle, as being matters- ' incompetent to them, and not within their jurisdiction, — it be an in- « struction by the General Assembly to all Presbyteries, that they ' proceed henceforth in the settlement of parishes according to the ' practice which prevailed previously to the passing of that act.' The remainder of the motion went to the manner in which the duty of Presbyteries should be performed, upon objections stated to the presentee. The course taken by Dr. Cook was the clear and plain course of duty, in the circumstances, for a Church founded and established by the state. Th'ey had taken a step, and sanctioned a measure, which the legal tribunals of the country had solemnly decided to be incompe tent and illegal. An Establishment can have no authority from the state to set aside the statutes of the state, passed to limit and restrain that Establishment, if these, or other statutes, do not confer such au thority. If individuals, whether a majority or minority, happening at the time to hold cui'es In that Church, choose to think that these re straints are Inconsistent with the character of the Church as a branch of the Church Universal, and that, as ministers of the gospel, they cannot recognize such restraints, their course Is plain, and it is imperative. But the Church Courts of the Establishment had but one course to adopt, viz., to acknowledge the illegality of the measure which they had incompetent ly, as an estahlishment, passed, and to stay further procedure in further ance and prosecution of it. After that, they might take any course, by appeals to the legislature or otherwise, which seemed expedient or fitting, in order to obtain their object, viz- to effect the' alteration in the law, which they found they could not themselves alter, — to gain for the congrega tions of the Establishment the privileges which it was found the Church could not bestow, and to introduce that requisite for the settlement of proper niinisters of pai'ishloners, which the Church thought essential, and which the constitution of the National Church, as established and settled by law, did not,- it appeared, secure and sanction. An applica tion to the Legislature for these, or any other alterations which the Church thought necessary or expedient, was quite consistent with obe dience to the law as declared by the House of Lords. But their duty as an Establishment was to acknowledge the law. Alteration of the law they were entitled to ask for from the legislature, which had fixed the constitution and powers of the Church. If that could not be obtained, and if the Church was thus left, in the opinions of any of its present members, in an unscriptural situation, such mem bers might then leave it. Their places in the Church would soon be filled by men as zealous and able as themselves, though contented With 65 the constitution under which the Church of Scotland has hitherto flour- ished. The motion which Dr. Chalmers brought forward created much dis appointment. He has alluded to the expectations of a very opposite course of conduct, which might have arisen, as he did not deny, justly, from the views he had expressed in conversation on the subject ; and if one can collect his meaning distinctly, he admits that he entertained a different view of the matter, and contemplated a different course, until he read, and, as I think, imperfectly understood, the opinions of your Lordship and Lord Brougham, delivered about a fortnight previously. That he had so little time to consider their opinions, might, I think, have rather Induced him to support the original proposal of Dr. Muir, simply for a committee. In order that time might be obtained for further consideration The disappointment certainly was great. I fear Dr. Chalmers will soon repent the hurried manner in which he gave way to the fiercer zeal of those whom, be admits in his speech, he had found it difficult to restrain even from more violent courses. His motion is curiously and evasively worded, considering its direct and avowed effect. Many at first could not even perceive that it neces sarily and actually declared the resolution of the Assembly to continue to enforce the Veto in defiance of the judgment of the House of Lords. Indeed, the conclusion of it almost leads to the suspicion that Dr, Chalmers himself did not see the extremities into which he was plunging the Church, apparently without the. means of future escape, especially when contrasted with the vagueness of the first part of it. He admit ted in his speech, that his motion was put into form by others. And I cannot but think that it took, in their hands, a shape and forrti very unlike what his straightforward course of action would have sug gested. He seems to have wished simply to affirm a general doctrine, and then to ask the legislature to enable the Church to carry it into effect ; whereas the motion, under generalities, re-asserts and abides by the Veto. Dr. Chalmers's motion is in the following terms : ' The General ' Assembly having heard the report of the Procurator on the Auchter- * arder Case, and considered the judgment of the House of Lords, af- ' firming the decision of the Court of Session, and being satisfied that, ' by the said judgment, all questions of civil right, so far as the Pres- ' bytery of Auchtefarder is concerned, are substantially decided, do ' now, in accordance t?ith the uniform practice of theChurch, and with ' the resolution of last General Assembly, ever to give and inculcate * implicit obedience to the decisions of civil courts, in regard to the « civil rights and emoluments secured by law to the Church^flstruct ' the said Presbytery to offer no farther resistance to the claims of Mr. ' Young or the patron, to the emoluments of the benefice of AuChter- ' arder, and to refrain from claiming the jus devolutUWi, or any other ' civil right or privilege connected with the said benefice. ' And whereas the principle of non-intrusion is coeval with the Re- ' formed Kirk of Scotland, and forms an integral part of its constitii- ' tion, embodied iri its standard's, and declared in various Acts of As- 66 ' sembly, the Geneial Assembly resolve that this principle cannot be ' abandoned, and that no presentee shall be forced upon any parish ' contrary to the will of the congregation. ' And whereas, by the decision above referred to, it appears that ' when this principle is carried into effect In any parish, the legal pro- ' vision for the sustentatlon of the ministry in that parish may be there- ' by suspended, the General Assembly, being deeply Impressed with the ' unhappy consequences which must ari.se from any collision between ' the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and holding it to be their duty ' to use every means in their power, not involving any dereliction of ' the principles and fundamental laws of their constitution, to prevent ' such unfortunate results, do therefore appoint a committee for the ' purpose of considering in what way the privileges of the National ' Establishment, and the harmony between Church and State may re- ' main unimpaired ; with instructions to confer with the Government of ' the country, if they shall see cause,' The terms of this motion require a good deal of attention. I may inform your Lordship, however, in the first place, that It was followed up, in the course of a few days, by instructions to Presbyteries to con tinue to do that which the Court and the House of Lords had 'solemnly decided to be a violation of the duties of Presbyteries, under the statutes of the realm, and to be a wrong. The motion in the first paragraph declares and admits, that all ques tions of civil right were decided by the judgment of the House of Lords. Now, what are the questions of civil right so decided ? From that point the Church cannot escape. The judgment expressly finds, that the rejection of a presentee, on account of the Veto, was illegal, that is, against statute law ; that the Presbytery, in allowing the Veto, and in acting upon it, had acted in violation of their duty, as declared and imposed by statute, — contrary to the express provisions of the sta tutes founded on (the act 1592, establishing Presbytery, and the act 1711, being the two leading statutes), and to the hurt and prejudice of the patron and his presentee. The Presbytery then has a duty imposed by statute. That is a civil question. The presentee is the individual to whom that obligation must be performed. His right is to call on the Presbytery to take him on trials : He calls upon them to perform a statutory duty : That is plainly a civil right. And it is decided that the Presbytery did wrong in not taking him on trials, and thereby acted in violation of a statutory duty : That is a civil question. These are the questions of civil right finally decided ; in other words, that consistently with the statute law of the realm, the Veto cannot be admitted, because it is a violation of civil rights .secured by statutes ; because the act of the Presbytery, in admitting the Veto, was a viola tion of their duty enacted and imposed by statute ; and because the act of the Presbytery was thereby prohibited. The law may appear to be good or bad to certain members of the Establishment ; but such is the judgment of the courts of law as to the law. That the violation of a statute protecting civil rights, and ini- 67 posing express duties on Presbyteries, at the time of the establishment of the national Church, is a civil question, the Church may deny ; but such an assertion only illustrates the extent of their present pre tensions, and the alarming usurpation of power at which they are aiming. No rational man, unbiased in his view of the matter, can dispute that the judgment of the House of Lords decided that the Veto, and the conduct of the Presbytery in admitting and acting upon it, were acts expressly prohibited, and in violation of statute law. Yet, in the present age, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has de liberately resolved that they will continue openly and directly to perse vere in that violation of the statutes of the realm, after the House of Lords have solemnly declared their import, meaning, and effect. I shall afterwards advert to the extraordinary errors involved in the notions, (1 .) that an Established Church can assert any authority in opposition to the statutes which have established and regulated It ; and (2.) that the Established Church is entitled to put its oivn con struction on these statutes. The ministers of such a Church may most conscientiously, and often most justly, and on the most Scrip tural grounds, conceive that they have not been allowed by the State to exercise the authority which ought to belong to all ministers of the gospel, over all classes adhering to their persuasion, exactly as they may often have great reason to complain that they do not receive the aid which it is the duty of a government to afford to theChurch established by the State as the national Church. That is true. The members of the Church Courts, or its other rulers, may be right, and the statutes and laws of the land regarding the Church, may be wrong. Be it so. It is natural to endeavour to get the latter altered, when wrong in the estimation of the former. But, until altered, they are part of the constitution of the country, and a very solemn and Important and leading part of such constitution, and must both be interpreted and obeyed. The Scotch legislature passed the act 1592, in the terms above quoted, which, at the time of the establishment of Presbytery, gave collation to Presbyteries, under an express provision and condition which directed a certain duty to be performed. The British Parliament, in order to enforce that duty, and to secure the right of patronage, repeat ed the enactment. The House of Lords have solemnly adjudged that •the rejection by a veto is contrary to these statutes, and a violation by •the Presbytery of the duty thereby Imposed. Dr. Chalmers's motion does not embody the plea of a learned mem ber of Assembly, who supported it, that the Legislature committed. to the Church, on whom the duty and the condition was Imposed, the co-ordinate right and jurisdiction of interpreting and deciding on these statutes, and of pleading their decisions against the judgment of the Courts of Law. Dr. Chalmers takes bolder ground, — but ground which ought to lead to secession. His motion declares the principle of the Veto Law, viz., the right of the people to reject, (for the vagueness of the term, non-intrusion, ought not to mislead,) to be an integral part of the constitution of the Church, E 68 and therefore not to be abandonded by the Church. But the statute law has prohibited and excluded that right of rejection, and the Courts have declared the measure enforcing that principle to be a violation of the duties of Presbyteries, as established by the State. Dr. Chalmers then, recording his conviction that such a view is against the Scrip tural notion of a Church, should either have proposed (obeying the law in the meantime) to apply for an alteration of the same, or have left the particular Church which the State had so fetterred restrained and mutilated in Its unalterable claims as a branch of the holy universal Church. The course actually taken is, to re-assert that which the House of Lords has disallowed. The second sentence of this motion is indeed an extraor dinary proposition to be adopted in the face of the country by an Estab lished Church, after the judgment of the highest tribunals respecting the Statutes which formed that Establishment. It repudiates the acts of Pq,rliament as an integral part of its constitution, and wishes to rear up a separate constitution apart from and opposed to these statutes. Let us examine its accuracy, and the authority and value of its constitution al assertion. ' Embodied in its Standards,' Now, what are the ' Standards' of the Church .? I thought there could be no doubt on that point. I under stood the Standards of the Church (in addition to the Scriptures, common to all), to be, In the proper and legitimate sense of the term, whether used as an ecclesiastical or legal term, its Confession of Faith and Catechisms. I know of no other. Is it in these that this part of the constitution isfound? The notion is absurd,^and I complain of the gross delusion practised by the use of such terms. The Standards have never been appealed to in the course of the discussion, not even by the most learned and excellent mover of the Veto Law, in his able defence of it on the Bench. The Confession of Faith does contain matters respecting Church Government and Discipline and Polity ; and that Confession, adopted, be it observed, and established by Act of Parliament (1690), is, as to all such matters, in the most general terms : — Terms excluding all such notions of particular regulations on these points being laid down. And I suspect the remark of the Lord President, in his address to the members of the Presbytery of Dunkeld, in the Lethendy case, was well founded, — that those mem bers of the Church who wished to disown the authority of the State to expound and enforce the constitution of the Church, had paid but little attention to the emphatic and stringent terms of the chapters of the Confession of Faith relating to the duties and powers of thie civil ma gistrate, and to the plain exposition of the subjects which form the proper topics for the consideration of the Church Courts and Assem blies. The position, then, that the constitution of the Church, as embodied In its Standards, contains any one syllable which recognises the Veto, is not accurate, nay, cannot be defended as accurate by any one. It will not do to say that, by ' the Standards of the Church,' Is meant something which forms no part of these Standards, but works of histori cal interest. The term has a fixed, I may say, a technical meaning. 69 The ministers are bound to sign the Standards: They are entitled to require various persons, for instance, the Professors of universities, to sign its Standards ; and the Standards are perfectly ascertained and de termined, — ascertained by act of Parliament, and by the most regular acts of the Church. The act 1690, session 4, of 1 Will, and Mary, c. 22, entitled an ' Act ' for settling the quiet and peace of the Church,' after again ratifying the Confession of Faith, proceeded to enact, — ' That no person be ad- ' mitted or continued for hereafter to be a minister or preacher within ' this Church, unless that he, having first taken and subscribed the oath ' of allegiance, and subscribed the assurance in manner appointed by ' another act of this present session of Parliament made thereanent, do ' also subscribe the Confession of Faith ratified in the foresaid 5'id act ' of the second session of this Parliament, declaring the same to be the ' confession of his faith, and that he owns the doctrine therein contain- * ed to be the true doctrine which he will constantly adhere to : As ' likewise, that he owns and acknowledges Presbyterian Church Govern- ' ment, as settled by the foresaid fifth act of the second session of this ' Parliament, to be the only government of this Church, and that he ' will submit thereto, and concur therewith, and never endeavour, di- ' rectly or indirectly, the prejudice or subversion thereof. And their ' Majesties, with advice and consent foresaid, statute and ordain, That ' uniformity of worship, and of the administration of all publick ordi- ' nances within this Church, be observed by all the said ministers and ' preachers, as the same are at present performed and allowed therein, ' or shall be hereafter declared by the authority of the same, and that no ' minister or preacher be admitted or continued for hereafter, unless that ' he subscribe to observe, and do actually observe, the foresaid unifor- ' mity.'* The Formula drawn up by the Church in consequence of, and in obedience to, this act of Parliament, is in the following terms, and con tains another recognition, that every thing connected with the constitu tion of the Church of Scotland was fixed by act of Parliament : — - 1 do ' hereby declare, that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine ' contained in the Confession of Faith approven by the General Assem- ' biles of this national Church, and ratified by law in the year 1690, and ' frequently confirmed by divers acts of Parliament since that time, to ' be the truths of God : And I do own the same as the confession of ' my faith,' fec.-j- In compliance with these doctrines, certain questions of similar import are put to licentiates and to ministers, and then they subscribe this For mula and the Confession of Faith. It is really in vain, therefore, to raise any doubt as to what are the Standards of the Church, In any cor rect acceptation of the term, or according to the meaning in which alone * Scotch Acts, vol. ill. p. 395. ¦{• Peterkln's Compendium, p. 47O. Church Styles, p. 90. 70 it can have been legitimately employed in the motion of Dr. Chalmers. We have these settled and ascertained by statute. We have the Church, in conformity to law, requiring acknowledgment of them, as ratified by statute, — thus admitting that the Standards of an Established Church must be what the State ratifies, adopts, and acknowledges. If the term Is not used correctly, there is an end of all reasoning. To what does Dr. Chalmers refer as ' the Standards' of the Church ? Is it to the First Book of Discipline ? No well informed man will venture to state that to be one of the Standards of the Church. Is it to the Second Book of Discipline .'' I wish to know by what authority, or in what cor rect sense of the term, that work can be said to be one of the Standards of the Church, or the principles and maxims of that work adopted by the Church after its establishment in 1 592, so as to form part of the Standards of the Established Church. It was framed before Presbytery was adopted by the Legislature, during the period when the Church was struggling to obtain a proper constitution. It was doubtless the exposition of the code of Ecclesiastical law to which the Church wished to obtain the sanction of the Legislature. It was presented for that purpose to the King and Parliament. It formed the subject of repeated discussions with the Sovereign for many years. It was rejected by the State, as a code or compilation to be acknowledged at all. The correct account of the history of the Second Book of Discipline is given by Lord Moncreiff, in his elaborate evidence in support of the law of patronage before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1834, in the following paragraph. Answer 1329-* ' This Book ' of Discipline was properly a. claim presented to the Crown and Par- ' liament. In speaking of patronage, it makes no distinction what- ' ever between one sort of patronage and another ; it speaks of them ' generally ; and it refers to the induction of ministers into any of the ' parishes of the country. That claim being presented to the Crown and ' Parliament, was followed by the act of Parliament in 1 592 ; and it ' is upon the confirmation which that statute gave to it, that any ,' authority which it can have, as forming part of the constitution of the ' Church of Scotland, as by law established, can rest. I think, there- ' fore, that it can scarcely be doubted that that Second Book of Discip- ' line can never he considered as making the law qf the Churdk by it- ' self, or treated otherwise than in connexion with the statutory enact- ' ments which gave it force, as forming the authoritative sanctions which ' were accepted of by the Church, and which being fully acted on, be- ' came of course the basis of the whole constitution of the Church of ' Scotland. But that act of 1592 did not grant that part of the ' claim contained in the Second Book of Discipline, that the ministers ' should be chosen by the Presbytery ; but, on the contrary. It contaln- ' ed the reservation of which the Committee was aware: " Providing the " foresaids Presbyteries be bound and astricted to receive and admit * Patronage Report, p. 175. 71 " quhatsumever qualified minister presented be his Majesty or laick " patrones." '* The part of the act 1592 referred to by Lord Moncreiff is very ma terial. It ratifies and approves of the Presbyterian form of Church Go vernment, and General Assemblies, Synods, and Presbyteries, and par ticular Sessions, as already introduced Into the kirk ; and then It em phatically adds, ' With the haill Jurisdiction and Discipline of the ' same kirk aggreed upon by his Majesty, in conference had by his * Highness with certain of the ministers convened to that effect, — of ' the which articles the tenor follows .-' — Then the statute goes over and adopts many parts of the Second Book of Discipline, though with out naming or alluding to it, omitting entirely the parts which relate to Patronage and the appointment of ministers, or to the general pow ers of Jurisdiction and Legislation claimed for the Church : — And at the close brings in the provision, giving to Presbyteries the power of col lation, and imposing on them the duty of admitting qualified presen tees, in the terms already quoted. Thus, the very part of the Second Book of Discipline which relates to the matter in question, was omitted in the statute which records the agreement on matters of Ecclesiastical Polity which led to the Esta blishment of Presbytery ; and the statute closes with the substitution and enactment of a provision of an opposite character. Is the part omit ted to be held forth by the Church so established as an integral part of its constitution, and as a part of its standards ? But the proposition of malnt.=iinlng either that the whole of the Second Book of Discipline Is part of the Integral constitution of the Church of Scotland, or forms one of its standards, is surely not a point which Dr. Chalmers intended to affirm. To what would such a proposition lead ? Why, to this, — that every subject of the country who is and desires to continue a mem ber of its Established Church, must admit as an article of his Church, and of his own belief, the authority and doctrines of a work, not named any where since the Establishment of Presbytery in 1592, as a part of Its constitution, or as one of Its Standards ; and including that portion of it which the Act 1592 specially omits. In order to introduce and enact a different provision. * It is very true, as I shall immediately mention, that the General Assembly in 1838 affirmed, that the Church was entitled to the eccle siastical authority and power which the Second Book of Discipline claimed for it, in the terms, and to the extent therein stated ; and the mover of that resolution broadly contended, that the whole of the Second Book of Discipline had received the sanction of the State, and was to be regarded as law, unless an express statute disallowing any part of it could be quoted. I allude to this to shew the lengths to which the pre sent pretensions of the Church are carried, and the propositions main tained in order to support the same. I presume there are few who will be disposed to think that Lord Moncreiff, upon this point, is not to be regarded as the highest and most competent authority among the advo- ciies of the Veto. 72 The Standards of a church (in addition to the Scriptures) mean those compilations or expositions which constitute the proper declaration of its views on the points therein embraced, whatever these may be, and must therefore form part of the opinions and belief of the members adhering to the Church. And of an Established Church, such Standards must have r-ecelved the sanction of, or been adopted by the State, and admitted by it to be part of the Institutions of the Established Church, or the St:ate must have committed to the Church the power of declaring and fixing its own Standards. Now, In what part of the constitution of the Esta blished Church Is the Second Book of Discipline declared to be one of its Standards, or even named and recognized at all ? Where is the au thority for saying that a subject of the country cannot be a member of the Church, unless he admits its authority and submits to its doctrines? Where is the command for requiring any minister of the Church to do either .? The attempt could not be made to compel any minister of the Church to acknowledge the authority of the Second Book of Disci pline. The Second Book of Discipline, for example, claimed election of ministers for the Presbyteries, (all admit the term eldership to denote the Presbyteries) ; and it further declared, that ' the order which God's ' word craved cannot stand with patronage,' Is that an Integral part of the constitution of the Church .? No one at least ever more forcibly advocated patronage, than Dr. Chalmers in the first half of his speech in 1833, ' Declared in various acts of Assembly.' These are, your Lordship well knows, but few and scanty — expressed in the mast general terms — containing no regulation — supported by no proof that they ever under stood, according to the modern acceptation of the term non-intrusion, namely, a right to a Veto : — And so far from fixing that principle of absolute and peremptory rejection, they establish^ as Sir H. Moncreiff justly observes, nothing but this, viz,, that the position of objectors is the proper place which the Church has allowed the people to assume. But if these acts of Assembly are after the act 1592, or after the act 171 1 , of what avail are they more than the Veto Act itself ? As to any appeal to acts of Assembly such as 1648, or the Directory of next year, when patronage v.as abolis^hed by act of Parliament, and the Legislature committed specially to the Assembly authority to regulate the appoint ment or calling of ministers during that state of things — it is really un worthy of a place in a constitutional argument. To quote the general declaration contained in one act of Assembly some years after IJIU which was never acted upon, and, as Sir Henry Moncreiff well observes, which was only meant to try to conciliate some of the first Seceders, but had no effect in practice whatever — will little avail the Church on such a point. Accordingly, this part of the ca.se — any reference to acts of Assembly — was admitted by every one to be the weakest part of the ar gument in the whole discussion in the Auchterarder Case. But after all, what does Dr, Chalmers mean to say was so embodied and declared ? A right of veto or absolute rejection ? No ; that is not pretended. Neitlier the Second Book of Discipline, nor any other authority referred to, exhibits such a principle. It is 'the principle 01 73 ' non-intrusion.' What does that mean ? If it is not the Veto, pre cisely as enacted in 1834, (before which time neither the Veto nor any one of the regulations of the Veto Act were ever heard of), which forms the asserted constitution of the Church, then the House of Lords, which has given judgment on the Veto, and nothing else, is right. There is then no such thing in the Church as the Veto ; and the course for the Church to take was plainly to say : — ' We agree to abide by a general ' principle, which at various times the Church has longed for, and which ' somehow must have effect — though hitherto Vfe have never succeeded ' in obtaining an acknowledgment of it — and we apply to Parliament ' to alter the law ; or we propose another mode of endeavouring to give ' effect to the principle, consistently with the law.' But, after all, the principle of non-intrusion either means, in this question with which the Assembly is dealing, the right of rejection by the people, — that is, the Veto, — or the declaration was without mean ing, and did not apply to the only practical point before the Assembly. The only thing truly intended to be described by the principle of non intrusion, is the right of rejection, — a right on the part of the people, without stating any objections, and whether the Presbytery approve or not, to refuse to have the person proposed to them. The thing con tended for by the motion of Dr. Chalmers is, the right of the people to refuse or reject the person proposed. That is what the phrase, non-in trusion principle, is intended to designate. Is it really meant to be maintained, that the rejection by a majority of communicants without cause — a right oi rejection, call it veto or not •^was ever known, adopted, or practised in the Church, while the right of patronage formed part of the law, or indeed at any time ? Dr. Chal mers, I presume from his speech, is prepared to go that length; for he says he will demonstrate to the Government that the decision of your Lordship was wrong. But in truth the general terms of the motion are calculated to disguise and evade the plain assertion of such a point, while they satisfy or pacify those who oppose patronage altogether, and who refer to this as the only true Import of the declaration. Considering how anxiously the argument in the Auchterarder cause was aided by all the research which its supporters in the Church could contribute, this reference to the Standards of the Church did create very general surprise. The Standards of the Church are part of the law of the land. What is there then in the Confession of Faith on the sub^- ject.? I-t is silent. There is not one word in it as to the appointment of ministers. What Is there In the Catechisms of the Church ? 1 be lieve all that is contained in either Catechism, is in the following sen tence in the Larger Catechism, after stating that the Word of God is to be read by all in private, though not publicly to the congregation, — ' The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently ' gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office,' — referring to the necessity of due and adequate preparation, and to the influence of proper and adequate motives, which may warrant an individual to hope, with the sanction of the Church, that he is called of God to that sacred 74 office. No ohe ever interpreted this sentence' (I believe) so as to apply it to the nomination or election by man. On reviewing these proceedings, one remarkable fact which presents itself for reflection is, that this motion after all, does not venture to claim the authority contended for by the Church, on the ground that such authority belongs necessarily to every branch of the Church universal — ¦ to every body of ministers, whether established by the State as a national church or not — as an authority committed to it by the Divine Master from whom their commission flows — an authority inherent in every church, therefore, and which Its institution and recognition by the State must acknowledge, else the Church cannot cohere with the State. Such is not the ground put forth in the motion. But In declining that ground, the Church gives up the very point for which they are in truth professing to contend, and abandons the only vantage ground which could be occupied In such a contest. If the principle contended for by the Church is not one which, on Scrip tural grounds,must obtain, according to theviews of its advocates, in every branch of a Christian church ; or if the authority to introduce and enforce such principles, when adopted by the Church, Is not an authority derived directly from the Institution of the holy ministry by its Divine Founder, and which every established church must therefore possess ; — if these are not the grounds on which the Church of Scotland has come to this re markable and extraordinary declaration of Independence of the decisions of the courts of the country, and of their intention to refuse to give ef fect to these decisions, on what ground can their conduct be defended, or on what consistent view of the subject can their resolution rest .'' The motion asserts merely that the principle of non-intrusion is an integral part of the ' constitution of the Church of Scotland,'' and refers to evidence oi that constitution. Then the question is at once reduced to this by the Church itself — What was the ' constitution' of this Church at the time of its establishment ? There is no longer the ques tion — What belongs to every branch of a Christian church ? — but merely the point — Did the legislature recognize in any shape, this prin ciple of non-intrusion, that is, the right of rejection, when it fixed the constitution of the Church of Scotland f This Is the very point decid ed by your Lordship. Or did it bestow on the Church the authority and right to declare and ascertain, or alter, its constitution on such ques tions — points affecting directly those parts of the constitution which were fixed by statute ? Did the legislature submit to the future expo sition of the Church, in opposition to the decision of courts of law on these statutes, the parts of the constitution so fixed .'' The assertion is, ' such was our constitution at the first.' Then no thing, it appears, is claimed for the Church by the motion, which was not part of its constitution, as then fixed a.scertained and declared. Observe what an immense point is thus conceded : how Indefensible, on this view, the resolution not to obey the law ! The constitution of an established church Is matter for Inquiry and for decision. So says the motion, for it refers to standards. It is idle to say that the Church can assert any 75 point to be part of its constitution, if it demonstrably is not. And fur ther, it is equally clear, that when the matter of inquiry is, whether a particular measure or principle was part of such constitution, and when it has been decided by the only tribunals appointed to interpret and enforce statutes, that the principle contended for is at variance with the enact ments which fixed that constitution, the Church to whom the constitu tion was given — and which claims nothing more than its constitution — cannot have the right to decide on its own views, and set at nought the decisions of these tribunals. The point to be attended to at present is, that whatever may be the argument of its supporters, or the principles which they act upon, the motion of the As.sembly announces and proclaims resistance to the law, not on the ground that the Church possesses the authority it claims from its Divine Head, and as part of the commission given by him to the holy ministry, but because the Assembly asserts its own view of a point in the particular constitution of this particular church, but which the tribunals of the country have decided forms no part of the constitution of this Church. The authority is not claimed, on the face of the motion, as it might be, by the ministers of a Dissenting persuasion, over those who choose to adhere to them, as part of the inherent authority which the ministers of the Word necessarily possess. Nor is the right claimed for the people, as part of the religious principles necessarily pertaining to all Christians. But these things are predicated of, and contended for by, an Established Church, as parts of its constitution. And thus, while the real pretensions are very different, and much more alarming, the resolution of the Assembly, directly refusing to obey the law, is, after all, simply a declaration as to an alleged point in the constitution — aye, and the written constitution too — of the Church, which it resolves to enforce, after the courts of law, on an issue joined to decide the point, have solemnly adjudged that such was not part of that constitution. Dr. Chalmers, in truth, shrunk from the doctrine which is in reality advocated, and thus gave up the only ground on which his motion could be consistently defended. Thus the resolution in truth abandons the vantage ground on which the Church wishes to stand. If the principle were one resulting, in the opinion of the Church, from the authority of the Holy Ministry, and the privileges of the Christian people, the position of the Church would at least be taken on a ground, on which those maintaining it might allege they could not be called on to surrender their own views — whether they could remain members of the Establishment, would be then the question. But when the resolution to resist the law Is taken on the ground that the Church Is todecidewhat the partlcularconstitutionof this particular church is, according as that is recorded and established by statutes, it is rather too much, either to suppose that the statutes which adopted and sanctioned that particular church are to be thrown out of view ; or that the tribu nal which is to decide on such questions is the Church itself; or that the Church, more than any other Body in the country, is to have a license to resist the decisions of the courts of law, because it differs from these decisions, and to act in open violation of statutes involving matters of civil rights, which the courts of law have found to be infringed by its acts. 76 Then follows the singular part of the motion : ' Whereas, by the de- ' cision above referred to, it appears that when this principle is carried ' into effect in any parish," (this plainly refers to the Veto or right of rejection, for that is the measure founded on the non-intrusion principle, to which alone the decision applies,) ' the legal provision for the sus- ' tentation of the ministry in any parish may be thereby suspended, the ' General Assembly, being deeply impressed vrith the unhappy con- ' sequences which must arise from any collision between the civil and ' ecclesiastical authorities,' &c. Thus, then, the motion admits at once, that if the Veto Act is ad hered to, the legal sustentatlon for the ministry will be suspended. How can the measure which produces that result be part of the constitution of an established church ? The endowment and the settlement of mi nisters are part of the provision which the State makes for the Instruc tion of the people, and of that establishment which it sanctions. It is the great feature of an Establishment. Can that establishment declare as a part of Its constitution, a measure which Is Irreconcil able with a claim for the endowments intended by the State for a minis try to be settled according to law .? I should have thought that the admission of such a result would have pointed out to every church man, that a principle admittedly leading to this lamentable state of things, never could form any part of the constitution which the legisla ture has adopted. If no part of such censtitution, then it is yet to be sought for and obtained from Parliament. And the extraordinary part of the whole affair is, that after all, application is to be made to the State for that power which is denied, (a sufficient acknowledgment of the ' blunder' by the Church In assuming it), and yet that the measure is to be exercised and persevered in in the meantime. Before noticing this part of the motion, let me request your Lord ship's attention shortly to the concluding part of the first sentence, which ' instructs the said Presbytery to offer no further resistance to ' the claims of Mr. Young or the patron, to the emoluments of the be- ' nefice of Auchterarder, and to refrain from claiming the jms devolutum ' or any other civil right or privilege connected with the said benefice.' I lament to see this pretext — for it is really nothing else — of sub mission to the law, introduced into a motion by the General Assembly — when their real proceedings are directly and openly in violation of the law, and in contempt of the judgment of the House of Lords. A plainer, a more Ingenuous, a straightforward course, would have been more becoming and more consistent. The claims of Mr. Young to the emoluments ! Why, every member of the Church, of any intelli gence, knows, (though in England the matter may be misunderstood', and throughout the country in Scotland it has by many been so misun derstood), that they do oppose — aye, and effectually continue to oppose Mr. Young's claims to the emoluments; for until they take him on trials, and admit and receive him, (if qualified), they maintain that he cannot have a title to these emoluments, or ever claim them. No further resist ance to his claims to the emoluments! Why, they ought then to take him on trials, if qualified, and proceed tohis induction, to the effect of constitut- 77 ing his title (in their view of it) to claim them. Then the Presbytery are to offer no further resistance to the patrons claim to the emoluments ! This is too much. All parties have before acknowledged, that the Court of Session had power to decide, to the effect of giving the pa tron the stipend. The Church did not, in the Auchterarder case, dis pute that that point was fixed. Yet so far Is the Church from of fering no resistance to the patron's right to the stipend, that the fact actually is, that the ministers of the Church, in another form, viz, as members of the Clergy's Widows' Fund, to which all ministers be long, claim these emoluments during the whole period which mayj,elapse till Mr. Young or another is settled, as vacant stipend, under a re cent act, to which patrons gave their consent ; and on that ground re sist the patron's right. Yet the Assembly put forth that they offer no refilstance to the patron's claim to the emoluments during their re fusal to proceed with the trials and settlement of his presentee ; while, under another name, the Church claims these emoluments for the benefit of their Widows' Fund scheme ! The Presbytery are Instructed to refrain from claiming the jus devolu tum. This is doing nothing in the way of giving obedience to the law. A court of law would, as a necessary consequence of the decision in the Auchterarder case, (indeed it is the same point in another form), set aside any presentation the Presbytery might issue, and the presentee of the Presbytery could get no right under it whatever to the benefice. Their presentee never could obtain possession. He could not be the legal minis ter of the parish. Nay, further. Dr. Chalmers knows that the Presbytery would be interdicted from attempting to claim the benefit of the patron age ; and I suppose by this time the Church perceive that the violation of another interdict is a matter which they had better not embark in. This part of the motion then, is in truth but the semblance of an ac knowledgment, even to the extend stated, of the law and of the deci sions of the Court : while in substance the Church stands out in open resistance to the law. True, they do not claim from the law, what the law has denied, or would deny to them. There is no submission in that. But to the judgment of the Court they resolve not to give effect, so far as they could be called upon to obey it. The motion was well calcu lated at first to mislead, and did mislead many ; but whenever it came to be understood, it only led to deep regret that it should have been put forth as an acknowledgment of the authority of the law, when it in some respects disguises or misrepresents the truth, and in others only directs the Presbytery to abstain from doing what theChurch cannot do, and never claimed the power of doing; But surely the admission that the Church cannot claim the jus de volutum, might lead any one who dispassionately reflects on the subject to perceive, that the rejection by the Veto of the patron's presentee, can not, on the principles of the Church itself, be coirstitutional . if it does not infer forfeiture of the patrons right, when no acceptable person is found within the six months, and does not give tind'ouhted right to the Pres bytery to present jure devohito. Their right to present jure devoluto, when the patron has forfeited his turn, is as good in law as the patron's. 78 Now the best argument for the A^eto — the argument which finds most favour in the eyes of all its supporters, and was adopted by the mi nority of the Court — is, that as the patron must present a qualified person, so a man not acceptable to the communicants or congregation cannot be qualified for that particular parish, or may be taken by the Church to be not qualified. If, then, he is not qualified,, in the sense in which the Church understands the term, and if no such person is presented within the six months, then, pro hac vice, the patron's right ought necessarily to be forfeited, and the right to devolve for that va cancy to the Presbytery. The non-appointment of a qualified person within six months in every case infers such a forfeiture. That is a legal, a constitutional principle. The rejection by the Veto ought then to lead to this result as a matter of necessity. If it does not, — if the Church cannot claim that, under the exercise of the part of the con stitution for which the resolution contends, — here is a plain test that the Veto cannot be part of the constitution of the Church, and that the Church cannot defend its own enactment. Further, the Church here admits by this motion-^indeed it has never denied — that the courts of law alone can determine what shall infer such forfeiture of the patron's right. That is a point which has been decided in innumerable cases with Presbyteries. Does not this ne cessarily, on every principle of sound reasoning, involve the further admis sion, that, if the Presbytery reject a person on grounds not consistent with the statutes, such rejection is not within their province and powers, and that the validity of such rejection must be judged of by the tribunals which alone can decide on the question, whether the patron has for feited his right pro hac vice, and the Presbytery acquired the right. The practical conclusion In which the last two paragraphs of the mo tion ends is, that though the Veto, being declared to be illegal, will lead to the suspension of the legal provision for the sustentation for the ministry oi a parish, yet the measure is to be adhered to. But un happily the result is even worse ; and either there is an obscurity studiously thrown over the practical results of the motion, in the lan guage employed, or there has been a most infelicitous selection of ex- j)ressions. It is not merely the legal provision for the ministry which will be suspended : The ministry itself will be suspended. The parishes may remain, for the lifetime of the presentee, vacant, so far as respects the ministrations of a regular settled pastor. The rejection of the presentee by the Veto has been found to be illegal. The Church admits it to infer no forfeiture of the patron's right of presentation. The Church admits that they cannot claim the right of appointing jure devoluto. There is no other mode of appoint ment. 'I'he church and parish remain vacant. Auchterarder does so now, and must continue so. Yet this is the state of things which the Church deliberately sanctions and continues, after the judgment of the House of Lords has determined the question in such a manner as ne cessarily to lead to that result, if they do persevere, (as they have re- 79 solved to do,) in the violation of the statute law, aud in the refusal to perform the duty which that statute law has Imposed on them. If it shall be said — We intend to settle ministers, if Parliament will not give us the power we ask ; — Every one must be aware that this is impossible. If Parliament shall resolve not to give the Church the power she claims, it is quite plain that the courts of law will not per mit the Church to settle and Induct ministers into parishes against the law, to which the State resolves to adhere ; and the clergy know well that such a state of things could not subsist. This is the very result which many look forward to. The evils arising from such a collision, between the authority of the law and the resolution of the Church to resist that authority at all hazards, they know will be very great, — the confusion and disorder in the social system enormous. But in these evils, and in the confusion which the motion will produce, the strength of the Church is thought to lie. It will be a state of things which must be cured — which will create a demand for a remedy ; and so, by reason of the evils and confusion which are deliber ately contemplated as the necessary consequences of the motion — which the motion itself contemplates — its supporters hope to triumph. By the suspension of the ecclesiastical establishment in some, or it may be, in many parishes, it is cimceived there will be so strong a call for some remedy — so loud a cry on the part of the parishes against the patrons or the presentees, on whom, in the first instance, the blame is likely to fall, rather than the Church at large, that the promoters of the recent proceedings expect, by the very evils which they have enact ed, to gain their object. It is thought that the Church, being a po pular Body, must gain in the long run in this contest. The reasoning is: — 'Let us then stand firm. The Veto must be admitted; and ' the evils In the meantime will accelerate our triumph.' Others, decidedly opposed to patronage and who have adopted theVeto as a stepping-stone to its abolition, think that this state of things, which Dr. Chalmers's motion contemplates as a probable result, will create an outcry (not the less loud that it may be misdirected and groundless, so far as the cause of such state of things is concerned) against patronage, — pro mote its ultimate abolition, and so tend to secure the main object which many of those now joining in or directing these measures, have in truth in view, viz., popular election of ministers by the people at large. That an Established Church should deliberately contemplate and sanction such a state of things as the probable suspension of the legal ministry, and of provision for the ministry, because they will not abandon a measure first proposed only a few years ago, and declar ed by the highest tribunal to be beyond their competency, is really lamentable. But it requires but little reflection to perceive, moreover, that it is only through this state of things that the Church expects and means to gain its object and secure its triumph in the course of open resistance to a violation of the statute laws of the realm. No one can believe that the Assembly, or those swaying its conduct 80 in a moment of heat and passion, can intend that a state of things so injurious to the interests of religion should subsist for any length of time. That is incredible. But it is manifest that the evils of that state of things are to be founded upon in order to strengthen the application for some statutory remedy. The Church plunges the country into this un exampled state, and then will plead the disastrous results to the Christian community in the vacant parishes, which their own measure deliberately creates, as a ground for admitting the claims and granting the demands of the Church. 7'he dissatisfaction which it is foreseen such a state of things will create, will, it is thought, aid them, and operate against the individual patrons ; or strengthen the Church in the attempt to overturn the right of patronage. Your Lordship will easily perceive how much the evils which may result from the state of things which this motion contemplates, may aid the Church In the attempt to extort their object from the State, if its proceedings are not firmly resisted from the first. And their expec tation to triumph in their present resolution to set the law at defiance, by means of the very mischief and public evils caused by that illegal and unconstitutional proceeding, will be increased by any encourage ment however temporary. That this is not one of the least serious con sequences of the matter, must forcibly strike every one who considers how perseveringly and recklessly, in utter disregard of the disturbance of the regular action of society, of the rights of individuals, and of the authority of courts of law, the encroachments of clerical usurpation have been pushed on in other ages, with means very disproportionate to those which, for a time at least, the Church of Scotland may Command. The motion of Dr. Chalmers is thus, in plain terms — Open resist ance TO the law of the land. I have now to request your Lordship's attention to the manner in which it was immediately followed up by the Assembly. The regulations for carrying the Veto into effect have never yet re ceived the final assent of the majority of the Presbyteries of the Church, (although the general Veto law of 1834 has,) and have been from year to year retransmitted by the Assembly to Presbyteri-es, being declared interim regulations, to be acted on until finally settled. Some altera tions were this year proposed — and here again was an opportunity for considering how the matter contained in Dr. Chalmers's motion was to be practically carried out and dealt with. The Church might then have said, — ' We have affirmed our principle, and announced our in- ' tention to adhere to it if necessary. We mean to do no more. It is ' a mistake to construe the motion as resistance, in the meantime, ' to the law. Until we see whether we cannot get an arrangement ' made with Parliament, we do not intend at once to set at defiance ' the judgment of the House of Lords, and to commence with a con- ' tinuance of the acts, which the House of Lords have found to be ille- ' gal, and a violation of the duty imposed on Presbyteries by statute. ' We suspend the further operation of the Veto.' 81 The course taken was, in express terras, to instruct the Presbyteries to do that which the House of Lords had found to be illegal and contrary to statutes ! The Assembly, in spite of the urgent entreaties of Dr. Cook, adopted the following resolution : — ' That the General Assembly having declared, by its resolution on ' Wednesday last, that it is " deeply impressed," &c. (then the terms ' of Dr. Chalmers's motion are quoted), and now feeling that it is inex- * pedient to take any step which may embarrass the proceedings of the > Committee then appointed, while they transmit the regulations and ' re-enact them into an interim act, direct the Presbyteries to report ' all disputed cases'" (what Is the meaning of this, when the Veto is to be applied, and the presentee necessarily, under the law, rejected ?) ' to ' next General Assembly.' The latter part of this motion requires explanation. By the Veto act and the Regulations, the Presbyteries are to admit and enforce the Veto — reject the presentee, if the majority are against him — and intimate that rejection to the patron. But then, by this resolution, they are to ' report disputed cases'' to the Assembly of next year. For what purpose ? The rejection by the Veto is final under the final law of 1834. The individual must be declared to be rejected. The ruin to him by the arbitrary Veto is effected. If he chooses to withdraw, the patron is entitled to present again. Then what remains to be the subject of any reference or report.'' The only matter truly to be reported is, whe ther Presbyteries are to be allowed by the Assembly to exercise the jus devolutum. That is, in fact, all that can or was meant to be the subject of such report. The Veto is to be permitted — the Presbyteries, by the regulations, are bound to permit it, and act upon it. The original law of 1834 (sufficient without any regulations) remains In force. The in terim Regulations are re-enacted, sent to Presbyteries, who, as a mat^ ter of course, continue, and are bound to continue, to act on them as be fore : but they are not themselves to present y^re devoluto, but to report to the next Assembly. In fact, the motion merely prevents the Presbyteries from attempt ing during this year, after the Veto has been acted upon and enforced, to exercise the right pf presenting themselves jwre devoluto. This is the only effect of the direction to report. Accordingly, in a reference by the Presbytery af Auchterarder to the Commission of Assembly which met in August, (to which I shall af terwards advert,) in consequence of the judgment finding that they were bound to take the presentee on trials, it was admitted and agreed by all that there was no necessity whatever for any reference— that the Pres bytery should not haye come to them, as their duty was said to be pre scribed by and clear under the directions of the General Assembly, viz., to rest on the Veto law, and to refuse to take him on trials. A case came before the Assembly, or rather tlie Commission of 82 the Assembly, (being a sort of adjournment of the Assembly after it Is dissolved,) which marked the spirit of the Church in a still more singu lar manner. In the case of the parish of Marnock, the Presbytery had resolved to obey the law. This had given grievous offence, and was brought before the Commission of the General Assembly, who pronounced the follow ing deliverance : — ' Edinburgh, 28th May 1839. — The Commission took up therefer- ' ence by the provincial Synod of Moray, referring the case of the parish ' of Marnock to the decision of the General Assembly. ' Mr. Clark of Inverness, authorised by the Synod, appeared to state ' the reference. ' The Commission sustain the reference, and, while deeply sympa- ' thising with the parishioners of Marnock in the circumstances in which ' they are placed, and duly appreciating and approving the conduct of ' these parishioners, they instruct the Presbytery of Strathbogie to super- ' sede farther proceedings in the settlement of the parish till next Assem- ' bly,' (that is, towards presenting themselves tanquam jure devoluto), ' unless in the event of Mr. Edwards withdrawing his present opposition, ' in which case the Commission, in accordance with the deliverance of ' the Assembly, instruct the Presbytery to report the matter to the next ' stated meeting of the Commission thereafter. ' The Commission farther highly disapprove of the conduct of the said ' Presbytery in resolving, contrary to the principles of this Church and * the resolution of the General Assemblv 1838, that the Court of Ses- •• ' sion have authority In matters relating to the induction of ministers, ' and that it was the duty of the Presbytery to submit to their authority; ' and in respect of their having come to such resolution, the Commission ' deem it necessary to prohibit, as they hereby do prohibit, the said Pres- ' bytery from taking any steps towards the admission of Mr. Edwards,' (the presentee who had been vetoed), ' before the next General Assem- ' bly, in any event, as they shall be answerable.' Thus, then, a Presbytery having resolved to obey the law, and having acknowledged that the Court of Session had jurisdiction as to the in duction of ministers, to the extent of the judgment of the House of Lords, this Presbytery is censured for what they have done, and are prohibited from giving effect to the presentation in favour of Mr. Edwards. There is no extent of actual opposition to law, to which these views of the independent authority of the Church do not directly lead ; and the pretexts are innumerable, on which every point whatever may be brought within the province and jurisdiction of the Church. An example may be given of the sort of reasoning which is resorted to in support of ecclesiastical usurpation. In the Weekly Tracts now publishing by clergymen of the Church, which are addressed, apparently from their style, chiefly to the lower orders, the following line of argument, in defence of the refusal to obey the law, is pursued. It is said that a clear distinction subsists. 83 ' between violation qf the law, and the breach of an obligation or condition, express or implied!'' That though the Church may have broken, (which is of course denied,) 'the contract with the State, by ' which she has been adopted as the Established Church of Scotland,' — yet this would be ' something totally different from disobedience to the ' law:' — Keeping out of view (Independently of the strange casuistry of the doctrine itself) the plain fact, that this contract or adoption by the State is matter of statute and of law. Then it is said, a misunderstanding may arise as to the contract with the State, as it is called, — that is, the Church Courts may dispute the im port and meaning of the statutes by which the Establishment was eonsti-. tuted. In that case, 'The Church is not bound (it is argued) to take the ' opinion of the civil courts as a rule of her own judgment, or even as ' determining what the State's views of the terms of the Establishment ' are !' The Church then is to go to the State. Well ; but in the mean time, and till the statutes are altered, is she to obey the law .'' The argument tells the people — that she is not ; for while making this appli cation — while ' doing this, the Church is at liberty, or rather is bound, ' to adhere to what she considers to be the right condition of her being ' recognised by the State as a Church of Christ :' — That any fault in doing this is at the worst only breach of contract, not disobedience to the law! ! Can any thing be more alarming, or practically mischievous, than such Jesuitical doctrines .'' The courts of law are not to interpret the statutes for the ministers of the Church. — They are entitled and bound to act on their own interpretation of them. To them the courts of law are not to give the meaning and import of the legislature, in adopting and settling a particular constitution for the Church : — But 200 years and more after its institution, the Church is entitled to put its own meaning on the statutes — to act on its own decision, — and then to put forth the plea, that a breach qf contract in regard to statutory obli gation, is not violation of the law, but is the dtdy of the Church! Then follows an argument, that every command of a Court of law Is not to be obeyed, even in the character of subjects. — ' Putting all ' Church questions out of the way, will it be held that individuals, and ' societies, in any community, are morally bound to comply with every ' ordinance of the civil power, of whatsoever kind it may be ? As long ' indeed as they recognize the civil power as legitimate, they are bound ' to submit to whatever it may inflict as the penalty of their not com- ' plying. Their persons, their properties, they must leave at its dis- ' posal. But when they are required to act in accordance with what ' it enjoins, they must consider, not merely whether the power itself is ' legitimate, but also, whether the particular exercise of it in the in- ' stance in question is so.' In short, subjects must submit to the pen alty of disobedience, so long as they acknowledge the authority to be lawful. Then it is added, ' It is not said, that when the civil power, ' in any case, issues an order, subjects are at liberty to choose whether ' they will obey it or submit to the punishment of disobedience ; that ' they have an option and alternative in the matter, and may use their F 84 * discretion. The obligation to obey is, so far as it goes, positive and ' peremptory. But there is room for a question, how far does it go ? ' Certainly, it reaches as far as the authority which claims obedience. ' But has that authority no boundary ? The word of God certainly ' recognises in the most explicit manner the authority of civil rulers, ' and most emphatically enforces the duty of subjects to obey magls- ' trates. And the use which has been made of its rules on this subject, ' would lead us to conclude, that it makes obedience to magistrates the ' paramount, almost the only duty of subjects, to which all other con- ' siderations must give way. But the language of Holy Scripture is, » first. Fear God ; then. Honour the King ; and none who are not pre- ' pared to resolve the whole system of religion and morality together, * into a mere matter of civil and political institution, and to hold that ' not the Church only, but all law of every kind, is the mere creature ' of the State, will affirm that cases may not occur in which subjects,. ' not only may, but must refuse to make the ordinance of the civil * power the rule of their conduct, without any imputation of sedition or ' rebellion, nay, with the highest praise of piety and patriotism. The * civil power, then, may stretch its authority over Its subjects, — over ' certain individuals or societies, — to a point at which they shall be ' bound to refuse their concurrence, without prejudice to their allegiance ' in all competent matters, and their general loyalty and obedience.' I do not think such views were as openly stated by the dissenters in Edinburgh some years ago, who refused to pay the assessment on householders for the Edinburgh clergy. And it is added that the Church asserts, that in this instance, ' the civil power has stretched to » this point, that it has transgressed its proper province :' — The doctrine uniformly maintained by every Church, when insisting on its independ ence of civil jurisdictions, in regard to the particular point, no matter what it may have been, on which the contests for ecclesiastical usurpation began. And hence the conclusion is, that the Church is to act upon her opinion, that the House of Lords have gone beyond their jurisdiction. Then it is maintained that in this country there ' is no overriding ' court to keep all tribunals to their proper province, and determine ? authoritatively the respective bounds of their jurisdiction.' The Church Courts are entitled to act without any such controul, because none such exist, and the Civil Court is acting illegally in attempting to interpret the law for their guidance and direction. Again, discussing the question whether the last judgment of the Court of Session, finding that the Presbytery are bound to take Mr. Young on trials, in performance of the statutory duty which the House of Lords has found is imposed by statute on the Presbyteries of the Church, it is maintained, — ' But not only is the Church not bound to ' pay such deference to the decision of the civil courts, she is not at ' liberty to do so. It is admitted, that in honour and conscience we ' are bound to regard the declaratory finding of the civil courts, as equi- ' valent to a direct order. And, moreover, it is admitted, that if we ' can, we are bound to obey it as such. Whenever the Court of Ses- ' sion and the House of Lords declared, that in their judgment we had 85 * acted illegally, this mere intimation of their opinion had, so far as we ' were concerned, all the force of the most peremptory command. ' And the same reasons which made it impossible for us to yield at ' the very first, make it impossible for us to yield now ; and must ' make it Impossible for us ever to yield. It is not a point of honour ' for which we are contending ; that might be conceded. It is not a ' question of doubtful expediency upon which a new light might break ' upon us. It is not a mere sullen mood of obstinacy, out of which ' we might be coaxed, or cajoled, or compelled. It is a matter of ' plain and high principk. It is true, indeed, in one sense, we formed ' our decision originally under a mistaken apprehension of what the ' civil courts would determine to be the law of the land. But we were ' under no mistake in regard to the law of Christ. We thought that ' the law of the land allowed — we were sure that the law of Christ re- ' quired — us to decide as we did decide. And whatsoever the law of ' the land may now be found, or may be made to say, the law of Christ ' is not changed — the law of Christ requires that we abide still by our ' decision. The question, should this man be pastor of Christ's flock ' in this parish, has already been settled according to the mind of Christ. ' No new element has arisen to alter or affect our view of the mind of ' Christ, as applicable to such a case. The decision of the civil court ' may shew, that it is less in accordance with the law of the land than ' we thought, that Mr. Young should be rejected ; — can it ever shew ' that it is more in accordance with the mind of Christ that he should ' be settled ?' Then it is said, it is better not to admit any technical grounds, or to prolong the warfare, but to bring it to a point. And it is added, ' This ' is the true reason of our refusing to proceed to his trials and settle- ' ment. We have no authority from Christ, the Head of the Church, ' to settle him against the will of the Christian people. This is our ' answer to Mr. Young, and to the high authority which he pleads. ' We dare not abandon or compromise this broad principle: We dare ' not take a single step which would seem, or might be supposed to im- * ply — that, notwithstanding the solemnly declared dissent of the flock, ' and the deliberate judgment of the whole Church — we yet might ' possibly, unless additional objections occurred, be Induced to admit ' this pastor. We dare not give any countenance to the idea, that ' after having decided, on views connected with the glory of God and * the good of souls, what is the course of duty, any earthly consideration ' can be allowed to sway our conduct. ' We must refuse, therefore, to do what Mr. Young asks, — and ' what the civil courts pronounce him to be entitled to ask : — I. Be- ' cause, the Church has staked upon this precise issue, the whole of her ' independent jurisdiction, — her very existence, in fact, as a Church of ' Christ, deriving authority from Christ alone, and bound to yield un- ' reserved obedience to none but Christ alone. In administering his ' laws, she cannot suffer any judgment of a human tribunal, or any ' consideration of earthly expediency, to Interfere as an element. The ' attempt to controul her in the execution of this high trust must be re- 86 ' sisted ; and so far from being a reason why she should depart from a ' position which she has conscientiously, and out of a regard to Christ's ' laws, assumed, the interposition of 'any other power, the introduction ' of any extraneous Impulse, is the very reason why she should take her ' stand on that position, — firm and immoveable as a rock. 2. Because ' nothing has occurred, in the least, to warrant a change or modifica- ' tion of the solemn decision to which the Church has already come, In ' the deliberate rejection of Mr. Young. If it was the Church's duty ' to reject Mr. Young, it would have been a sin in the Church to prp- ' ceed to his settlement ; and the sinfulness of such an act would have ' depended on the immutable principles of Christ's government over ' his Church and people. The same act would be sinful now ; and no ' laws, and no interpretation of any laws, can oblige the Church to sin. ' The State may impose and enforce a law which the Church cannot ' without sin obey. The State may punish or persecute the Church ' for disobedience ; but the Church must still disobey. When the pre- ' sent law of patronage was enacted, it was not understood as compell- ' ing the Church to intrude unacceptable and unsuitable presentees. ' She did so voluntarily ; therefore she had the greater sin. Now, for ' the first time, by the late decision, the law is interpreted as imposing ' on the Church the obligation of doing, what she did too often of her ' own'accord, butwhat now she would gladly cease from doing any longer. ' But the law cannot make that duty, which still is, in its own nature, ' sin. The Church's course is plain : Let her testify, — let her suffer ' if need be ; but, let her not abandon the position in which now, as of ' old, she is called to glorify God, and to contend for the crown and ' kingdom of her Divine Lord and only Head.' These are the practical views which the clergy of the Church and their supporters are endeavouring, in weekly tracts, in which they are calling on the people to strengthen the hands of the Assembly's Com^ mittee, to disseminate throughout the country. In the course of a week after the publication I have last quoted ap peared, the Commission of the General Assembly, at its meeting in August, took up a reference by the Presbytery of Auchterarder, for advice as to the course which they should follow, in consequence of the judgment finding that they were bound and astricted to take Mr. Young on trials as presentee, and, if found qualified, bound and astricted to receive and admit him as minister of the parish. Mr; Young had formally intimated that judgment to the Presbytery, and called on them to obey the law ; to the effect of ascertaining if there is truly, in the opinion of the Church, any objection whatever personal to him, in regard tcf ministerial gifts and qualifications, or otherways. The Presbytery applied to the Commission for advice ; and that body, fol lowing up the motion in May of Dr. Chalmers, came to the following resolution : — ' The Commission having heard the reference from the Presbytery ' of Auchterarder, sustain the same. The Commission are of opinion ' that the application of Mr. Young is incompetent, not only because ' he was finally rejected by a sentence cf Presbytery, which was not 87 ' appealed from — a similar application having been directed to be re- ' fused by the Assembly of 1838, but also because it would be a com- ' plete violation of the fundamental principles of the Church, in con- ' travention of her standing laws, and in defiance of the authority of ' last General Assembly, who, on a report of the Auchterarder case be- ' ing laid before them, declared that no presentee should be forced up- ' on the people ; as also, because it was opposed to the sentence of the • Commission in May last. And the Commission are further of opi- ' nion, that no sentence of the civil court can justify their compliance. ' The Commission farther considered the motion which was made by ' the minority of the Presbytery, to take Mr. Young on his trials, here- ' by prohibit the Presbytery in any event on taking Mr. Young on his ' trials, as they shall be accountable.' This proceeding completely illustrates the nature and practical effects of the principles at present adopted by the Church. I abstain from any comment on this last occurrence. But I wish to direct the attention of your Lordship to the princi ples maintained by Mr. Candlish in the Commission of the Assembly, in supporting this resolution. ' He would simply ask whether the Church was prepared to induct ' in this case, not because they had changed their views, not because ' they had come to see it to be their duty, as a court of the Church of ' Christ, to induct a man contrary to the will of the people ; but mere- * ly because another tribunal — to which in all matters they cannot re.- ' cognise subjection — had interposed. Such an interference afforded ' only another reason for standing fast in the course which had been ' adopted. With regard to the parish of Auchterarder, had the House ' any evidence that it was less reclaiming than before ? — that Mr. ' Young would be the minister of more than two Individuals .'' Was ' the Commission prepared to induct a man as pastor, when the flock ' declared conscientiously that he could not edify their souls ? The ' members of Christ's body were not be spoken of precisely as children, ' over whom the Church should assert arbitrary power — over whom ' they should exercise any power. They were not to be spoken of as ' children would be with reference to tutors. Their standing was far ' more high and sacred, than to permit them to be trampled on by the ' arbitrary power of a patron, or of Church Courts. Did they not find ' the Christian people — not the ministers and elders — were very dlffer- ' ently spoken of through the whole New Testament ; ' To these we * speak as unto wise men ; judge what we say .?' The apostles recog- ' nised the standing of the Christian people as so high, that even they ' must reverence it. Was not the sacred responsibility laid on the peo- ' pie of trying the spirits? And was it consistent with this responsi- ' bility that the flock of Christ should be represented in depreciating « terms ? The members of the Church Courts were appointed, not to ' lord it over God's heritage, as if they had power to disregard the voice ' of the people, and induct an unacceptable presentee.' We have thus, then, the proof what are the consequences to the 88 country of these doctrines as to the independent and divine jurisdiction of the Established Church in ecclesiastical matters, and of the right of the Establishment to determine for itself, what is to be taken as an ecclesiastical and what a civil matter. I would simply ask, of what avail are any reguladoBS and provisions of the legislature in establishing a National Church, if the latter are to act upon these pretensions ? Those which have been established for centuries are declared to be of no authority, and the judgments of the highest tribunals in the country openly set at defiance, on the ground that they are of no avail against the Church courts. In supporting such doctrines, men forget that they are subjects of the country and that the law recognizes no independent and separate character in the person of any members of the Established Church, whether ministers or laymen, which exempts them from the jurisdiction of the Courts which are to interpret the laws. If the decrees of the Courts are inconsistent with the. private views of individuals as Chris tians, respecting the powers which Church Courts should possess, they ought to remember, that it is only from them, as members of the Esta blishment, that such obedience to the law is required In these matters which they think beyond the controul of law. Their plain duty is to leave the Establishment when they cannot obey the law. As members of a Dissenting persuasion, they can establish, for those who belong to the same opinions, any standard they choose to settle for the autho rity of the Church Courts of such bodies, or for the standing of the Christian people in the Church. But the law holds the members of the Established Church to be members of a body, which, receiving pri vileges, benefits, and emoluments by force of law, has been subjected to legal restraints in the very matters in which, when conscience prohibits such restraints, the law also protects and leaves free all who cannot on such terms be members of the Established Church. But, to retain the status and emoluments which have been received in the. character oi members of the Established Church, and yet to de clare, that the Church Courts and churchmen are exempted from the authority of the tribunals of the country, is precisely one of the most dangerous pretensions of the Church of Rome, and utterly at variance with the Confession of Faith. So palpable is this inconsistency, that it has lately been argued that the claim of exemption from obedience to the civil power, which the Confession of Faith condemns, applies only to exemption of the person and property of members of the Established Church : But, obedience to the late is not implied in the condemnation of this doctrine in the Con fession of Faith ! ! All this ferment has been raised by the Assembly, and these periU ous and alarming questions have been brought on as to the powers of the Church, and its relation to the State, because the Supreme Court of Scotland, and the House of Lords, decided that it was beyond the power of the Church, as an Establishment, to pass the Veto, in respect 89 of the statutes defining on that point the constitution of the Church. And yet what is now the actual admission publicly made by Dr. Chal mers, as to his own opinion respecting the competency and propriety of that step ? Why, that the Veto was incompetent, — that the Church should have gone to the legislature in the first instance, — that he did not think that the Church could competently enact the measure, which he himself proposed in 1833, and that his opinion was overborne. This is no unimportant fact in the review of this controversy, and in the consideration of the views, as to the independent jurisdiction and au thority of the Church, on which the Church, on the motion of Dr. Chal mers, has now taken its stand. I think it right to quote his statements on this matter. Dr. Chalmers said, ' There is one reason special to myself, why the * position to which we are now brought, in virtue of this decision by ' the House of Lords, should be to my mind not so embarrassing, not ' so inexplicable, as many do imagine it. I, who first moved the Veto ' law, which has now had an adverse sentence pronounced upon it by ' the highest civil judicatory in this realm, feel no difficulty at least in ' stating my own view of the course which ought in consequence thereof ' to be taken. It may look a little overwhelming, first to have made a ' motion which was defeated in the Assembly by a majority of twelve ; ' and then, after it had been carried on the following year by another, * to have it again defeated, or rather overborne by a power without the « Assembly, and that too a power, resistance to which might put to ha- ' zard the very existence of the church establishment in Scotland. This • looks formidable enough ; and yet I am at no loss for what I deem ' our clear and incumbent part, which, if but adopted, will, I think, ' make good for us a clear and satisfactory outgoing to the whole of the ' perplexity. I have only to repeat the suggestion which I made six ' years ago, at the outset of this measure, to its friends and supporters; ' and which I dare say they now regret they have not acted on. What ' I then thought and wished, and to which at that time I gave utterance ' in a club or conclave of advisers, I have only now to declare aloud in ' the open Assembly. The identical thing which then was whispered ' in the ear, I have only now to proclaim upon the house top.'* He then stated his views as to the duties and powers of Presbyteries in judging oi the fitness of a presentee for the particular charge to which he has been appointed, and of the authority and jurisdiction oi the Church Courts in that respect — ahd declared that his opinion from the first had been, that the right course to follow was, that the Church should assert, as a general principle, the right of Presbyteries to take into consideration every circumstance which touched the fitness of a presentee, and then go to Parliament, that the concurrence of the legis lature, as to the effect which might be given to the will of the people, might be obtained, for the purpose of ' making sure that we did not ' forfeit' that which the State can give or withhold. * Revised Speech, p. 1, 90 ' That was the only principle on which I can vindicate the advice ' then given ; and my only regret now is that it was not taken. 1 now ' regret with all my heart that my fears were overruled, by the high ' legal authority of those whom I felt to be greatly more competent than .' myself for a judgment on the effects of the step which was actually re- .' solved upon. But better late than never. The very measure which ' I then advised, and which, if consented to, would have prevented the ' blunder, I now advise over again, and that for the purpose of repair- ' ing it.' Whatever may be the motives for the advice which Dr. Chalmers gave to the ' high legal authority by whom he was overruled,' this plain practical conclusion follows from the admission, viz. that the course taken was in his opinion incompetent and illegal on the part of the Church as an Establishment — whatever, in the abstract, and apart from her relation to the State, he might hold it to be within her power. Even if he looked to the competency of the measure by an Establish ment, chiefly as likely to lead to the separation from the Church of the legal provision in parishes for ministers — the measure on that limited ground alone, must in his opinion have been incompetent on the part of an Established Church, of which that provision is one of the distin guishing marks. On this point, his original conviction as a churchman, is of far greater importance than the opinions of the lawyers to whom he deferred. It could not be on the question, taken as a mere legal point on the construc tion of the statutes, that Dr. Chalmers urged his views so anxiously on Lord Moncreiff and Mr. Solicitor-General Cockburn, and attached to them so much importance, that he takes the somewhat unusual step of recording the difference of opinion in private deliberations, between the framers of a public measure. He has certainly asserted his claim to the merit of having wished to take a much more cautious, constitutional, and even more legal course, than that which, against his own judgment, and in deference to the opinions of others, he then so gallantly pro posed and unhesitatingly defended. I am afraid that this admission must detract something from the weight due to his views and proposals on a great public question. No one could have imagined that his own conviction as a churchman was opposed to the competency and propriety of the practical measure, which in 1833 he proposed at once for immediate adoption by the Assembly as an Es-tablished Church, • without waiting for the concurrence of the State. But the material point for reflection, and for the consideration of others is, that the very author of this measure — (which he claims as pe culiarly his own) — believed, as a churchman, the course which the Church took to be, for an Establishment, unconstitutional and unsafe. As a civilian and a lawyer, he could not think that his opinion (though it has turned out the better one) was to be urged upon and maintained against ' the liigh legal authority to which he deferred.' But as a churchman, — deeply interested in and having reflected much on the principles of an established church, and on the relation of the Church 91 to the State — the opinion which he held in private before these dis cussions arose, before the Church was committed to any step, is of the highest importance. When we are told that the decision of the House of Lords assails the independence of the Church and invades the rights which It derives from its Great Head, — when the country is so loudly called upon to support the Church in her resolution to act in defiance and in disregard of that judgment, it is enough for most now to know, that the course originally adopted, and which is so reso lutely adhered to, was, in the deliberate judgment of Dr. Chalmers, against the duty of the Church as an establishment, and beyond her competency as such, — and that the very embarrassments in which the Church is placed, were fully in big view and predicted by him. ' Better late than never.' Alas ! he does not now, when it is not too late, propose to do the thing which he formerly wished. ' The mea- ' sure which I then advised, and which if consented to, would have j)re- * vented the blunder, I now advise over again, and that for the pur- ' pose of repairing it.' Why, the thing originally advised is not what Dr. Chalmers now proposes. 'The blunder' which he desired to prevent is not now 'to be repaired.'' Such is not the motion, which, on his proposition, the General Assembly adopted. How is the Blunder of not first get ting the concurrence of the State, before acting on the views of the As sembly and enforcing the Veto, corrected or repaired .'' The course taken is the very reverse. ' We did right — we did what was within our ' power — what was perfectly constitutional, fitting and proper for an ' establishment to do, without consulting the State or taking the State ' along with us : Therefore we adhere to it, be the consequences what ' they may. True, the Courts have found that the State ought to ' have been taken along with us — what is that to us ? We cannot ' then claim what the law will not give us. But we, one of the two ' bodies interested in the matter, chose to act for ourselves — we adhere ' to what we did — we desire the other to concur in what has been done, ' and finally done, by us. — If not, we abide by that measure without ' regard to results.' This is the language and result of the motion. Dr. Chalmers ad mits that, ' from his own inability to put his motion into a practical ' shape,'* he gave it to others for this purpose, and one is led to suspect that he had not seen the practical shapewhich in their hands it did assume. It may have been originally as strong in assertion of principle, — but it Is strange that. If he had seen the practical result of the motion as framed, he should have made the disclosure I have now alluded to, — much- more haye declared that he wished to ' repair the blunder' he had in vain attempted to prevent. ' Better to do it late than never.^ That was what It was expected (I may say, known) that Dr. Chalmers intend ed to do. But for what purpose this disclosure and statement, looking, to the motion which he actually brought forward ? What acknowledg- * See Newspaper Reports. 92 ment, still more, what reparaiiow, is there of ' the blunder ?' By disclosing his original private conviction, Dr. Chalmers has deprived the Church of the whole weight of his authority as a Churchman in support of its present position; while that, which he actually proposes, just leaves 'the blunder'' precisely where it was, without abatement, counteraction, or palliative. When the thing has been done, — when the practical consequences of the Establishment following its own course without the concurrence of the Legislature, are demonstrated and brought home to the Church by the judgment of the House of Lords, and by its admitted results ; — then to ask the Legislature to relieve them of these results, which may deprive the -Church of its sustentation, and at the same time to persist in carrying the measure, which had been declared ill^al, into effect, seems but an imperfect mode oi repairing the blunder. Those who ori ginally differed from him in the 'eluh or conclave,'' would, I suppose, enter into that equally with Dr. Chalmers. All who have takeri a step against law, but to which they resolve to adhere^ naturally wish to be relieved of the consequences of the illegal act, and to obtain for it the sanction of legality. The law, as found by the House of Lords, cannot be altered but by act of Parliament. There was no thing peculiar then in suggesting such an application. It had no more connection with Dr. Chalmers's private opinion than with the opinions to which he deferred. The blunder was in no degree repaired, if the State will not concur. What was ' the blunder ?' Why, doing the thing without the concurrence of the other Body interested in tbe measure. Two great Bodies were equally Interested, — two (Dr. Chalmers says) independent, co-ordinate Bodies, — each in its own sphere and department. A mutual relation subsisted between them, which was the subject of acts of Parliament made by the one, and not hitherto repudiated by the other. A thing was done by the one directly affecting these statutes, without consulting or communicating with thfe other. There was no desire for a disunion — none for assertion of inde pendence. Then ought the other great Body to have been consulted before the measure was passed which affected their mutual relation ? ' Yes,' says Dr. Chalmers, ' I always thought so ; we ought to have ' taken the State along with us. Let us now repair " the blunder" ' we committed. The consequences will be serious. I said, from the 'first, that the course we took was wrong. Better late than never. ' Now, take the course I at first suggested.' Is that done ? Not at all. The Church does not now go to Parlia ment saying, ' We admit that, as an Establishment, we cannot go against ' the acts of Parliament. They impose on Presbyteries, as the Church 'Courts of an Establishment, a clear duty. But we think that condi- ' tion is too stringent ; it fetters us too much. We admit that both ' parties must concur in an alteration. We wish to reconcile our plan ' with what has been found by the courts to be the conditions of the Establishment, or to have the law altered by one who alone can alter 93 • it. Our duty is clear .: We do not refuse to perform it : We do not ' continue to enforce the Veto until we get the sanction of the State : ' We do not discuss or reassert the law : We obey it : We shall con- ' tinue to act as we did until 1834 : We were in error in tbink- ' ing we could relieve ourselves of our statutory duties imposed on us as ' an Establishment : We are required to take on trials, and to receive ' and admit, qualified presentees: We see that it is our judgment which ' is to decide, — that we must exercise it, — and we intend to do : But we ' think the will of the people ought to be expressed, and effect given ' to the same, — that no one should call upon us to take him on trials ' whom the people refuse : And we now propose to you so and so.' This would have been the course to adopt ; repairing the blunder as Dr. Cook proposed,; and then going to Parliament with whatever pro position the Assembly thought proper to propose. But the course is this — ' We have, without consulting you, adopted a ' particular measure. The courts have decided it to be beyond our powers. ' Certain effects we know must follow from their judgments. We cannot ' avert these or help ourselves. But we re-assert what we have done, be- ' fore now coming to you. We declare that it is final. At the least we go ' that length without consulting you. We have solemnly and irrevoca- ' bly declared that we will not depart from the step taken : — We have ' directed our Presbyteries to enforce it, be the consequences what they ' may We tell you, the other party interested, that we do so adhere to * that which we have done. Nay, more, we tell you the judgment of the ' House of Lords is wrong ; we intend to demonstrate to you that the ' opinions of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Brougham are utterly ' wrong. But if you think them right, we declare that the Establish- ' ed Church will not perform the duty which the original statutes im- ' pose upon her ; she will not give effect to the judgment of the House ' of Lords, be the consequences what they may. But now give your ' consent to what we have done. The consequences are most serious to ' us as an Establishment. We see that we may forfeit the provision for ' the ministry when the Veto is acted on. Hence, consent then, — it ' will be a very convenient way to repair the blunder we have committed, ' and to get us out of the difficulty. We ought not to have acted before ' consulting you ; you are the other great body in the relatioii of ' Church and State ; you fixed certain matters which we did not refuse ' to take from you as so fixed. We have done something directly in ' face of these statutes — so the Court have found. But we abide by our ' acts ; we mean to enforce them whether you will or not ; but we ask ' you to consent as the course which we think best for us.' Is it not plain, that, on Dr. Chalmers's own acknowledgment of ' the ' blunder,' the Church should, if they concurred with him in his views as a churchman, have withdrawn, or suspended, at least this Veto, and have gone to Parliament with a proposal, before doing anything themselves. True, the leading supporters of Dr. Chalmers view the whole original question in a different light from that which this confession, by him im plies. They take different ground. I fear, those who ' put his motion 94 ' into practical shape,' gaye it a turn which he did not perceive. But, with the country, with the government, and the legislature, it is matter of important reflection to know, that the course which has produced these embarrassments, was originally adopted against the deliberate judgment of a man, in whose genius and talents Scotland takes such pride, and whose zeal for the welfare or the privileges of the Church, is second surely to none. III. I am persuaded that your Lordship will regard these proceed.^ ings, on the part of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, as fruit ful sources of embarrassment, and as containing the elements of much confusion and disorder. The open announcement, by an Established Church, that they will continue to act In violation of statutes, disregarding a solemn judgment of the House of Lords, obtained on an appeal taken by themselves in order to settle and determine the competency oi their proceedings, is an alarming and unexampled proceeding. The measure affects the civil rights of parties secured by statute. That wrong should be done, openly, deliberately, and without disguise, by continuing to invade and encroach upon these rights; and that the parties should be told, that the judgments of the Courts of Law are to be set at defiance, and to afford them no protection, is no light matter. But, that such an unexampled occurrence should take place on the part of the Established Church, and in the present day, when that Establish ment has experienced, to its astonishment, such fierce assaults on the principle of an establishment, from an important part of the religious community of Scotland, the old Presbyterian Dissenters, does appear most singular infatuation. It is not perhaps easy to say that there are any more serious conse quences from these proceedings, than the wrong done to civil right and the disregard of the judgments of Courts of Law. The strong feeling of injustice which such proceedings necessarily engender, and the general sense of the danger which such an ex ample creates, tends to alienate many from the Establishment — to occasion doubts with some as to the peculiarities in that Constitution, which gives, for a time at least, to agitation and extreme opinions siich predominance, and to create a distrust of the views and objects of the clergy in their proper sphere. There is no stronger or more universal feeling among mankind, than the sense of injustice : — For all feel that their own rights may be the subject of attack from one quarter or another. And the necessity of protection by Courts of Jus tice, and of obedience and submission to final decrees of such Courts, on questions either of right or power, is pressed on the minds of all by the exigencies of daily life, and by constant observation of the incalcu lable evils which would result from the absence of such protection and such authority. So strong and general is this feeling throughout the country on this subject, that I am assured from many quarters, that, with the exception 95 of a newspaper supported by ministers of the Church as a religious paper, and of one other newspaper, all the newspapers throughout Scotland, of whatever politics, have condemned the conduct and acts of the Church throughout these proceedings. But I fairly own, that the wrong to civil rights, and the disregard and defiance of the judgments protecting these rights, appear to me to be but a part of the considerations which this review of the proceedings of the Church opens up. Usurpation is the fruitful parent of a multitude of wrongs ; and those embarked In It are soon led, (even if the original spirit were not one of Intolerance), to defend and support themselves when they have the power, by greater acts of Injustice, in order to overcome opposition, or to stifle and crush complaint. I beg to request the attention of your Lordship, 1st, To the conduct proposed to be followed towards those who have opposed the Veto act as Incompetent ; and, 2d, To the assumption of power by which this course has been. defended. It has often struck dispassionate observers as a remarkable fact, with how much disregard the clergy, once placed in cures in Scotland, often treat the rights and status of Licentiates. In no Church, probably, is the status of the Individual licensed to preach the gospel, kept in such inferiority to the status of the minister who has got a benefice, as in the popular Church of Scotland, or his rights so little attended to, when any question occurs in the Church. In passing the V^to act, the risk of grievous cruelty, of frightful and galling injustice to licentiates, was utterly disregarded. It was no slight matter to subject the numerous class of young men, who had ob tained their licences to the perfect satisfaction of the Church itself, to such an ordeal, which, on entering into their profession, they had no reason to anticipate, and from the very notion of which many a pious and sensitive mind would shrink with aversion. But it is not to such licentiates alone, that the matter is important. The clerical profession, or rather I should say, the desire of entering on the office of the holy ministry, determines a person's views, studies, and pur suits for life — requires great labour, the study of many years, great sacri fices in early life, through which the hopes of future usefulness, and the prospect of that reward to which the faithful pastor may aspire, per haps -could alone support many a young man, during years of early dis cipline, privation, and obscurity. The incidental and collateral openings for any livelihood connected with the Scotch Church, maybe said to be so rare, as not to exist. A parochial charge is the object of the licentiate, and his only object ; and, when obtained, the income after all leaves him a life of struggle, of care, and of anxiety. The Church undertakes the direction of the studies of those desirous of entering the Church, — prescribes their studies, — takes them under its peculiar charge for three or four years in the Divinity classes, where the Professors have oppor- 96 tunities, which they faithfully employ, of studying and directing the views of the candidates for the Church, — prescribes and appoints trials of every qualification and gift by the Presbytery from which the young man is to receive his license, which declares him qualified to preach the gospel, to assist the ministers of the Church, and qualified to receive a presentation to any living. These trials are of a very important and serious description, — they may, and do, extend to every thing the Church chooses to prescribe and to exact, in addition to a course, I believe, of eight years of previous study. They relate to attainments in literature and theo- logy-^to dispositions — views of pastoral duties — and fitness for the same in all points. I am not aware of any limit, either to the na ture of the inquiries, or to the strictness of the examinations which the Presbyteries may conduct. The candidate for orders must preach and lecture to the Presbytery : — They need not pass him on his first trials, but may remit him again to his studies. They may direct and exhort him as to the mode and style and objects of his preaching : — They have full opportunities of judging of his fitness for the duties and labours of the ministry, — the Church may reject him if, on any ground whatever, they think him unfit. The Church has unlimited authority to reject, — unlimited authority to select, — on any views which they choose, so as to secure the best possible class and order of licentiates : — Upon their power to reject those seeking for licenses there is no re striction. There is no degreeofwatchfulnesss, of jealousy, and strictness, which they may not enforce, — and the greater the vigilance the better. They have it in their power to direct the views of pastoral duty, — the style of preaching, — the objects of clerical duty which shall be attended to : — and the very fact that these examinations are conducted by such a court as a Presbytery, is a sufficient warrant that there can be no remissness through the carelessness of an individual. Above all, the estimate and view of pastoral duty, which the candi date possesses, who is desirous to enter the ministry — the seriousness of his views — the sincerity of his religious feelings — and the devotional turn of his mind, are the very first and most important points of inquiry - by the Presbytery before they grant the license. The young man must have been for four years under Divinity professors, with whom he goes through constant exercises in every branch of his intended duty ; — they have ample opportunities, before they grant their testimonials, of judging of the frame and temper of his mind. Then the exercises before the Presbytery, to whom he must preach and lecture repeatedly, (and the Church can prosecute these trials as far as they choose), may surely enable the Presbytery, experienced ministers of the Church, to see most satisfactorily whether the individual is coming forward with pro per notions as to the functions and objects of the ministry, and pos sesses the religious feelings and devotional turn of mind essential for the sacred character. The protection is or may be here complete. The Presbyteries are bound to protect the country, by the manner in which they select candidates for the ministry. And there is no degree of rigour or anxiety in these trials which could or ought to be complained of. 97 When these trials are gone through, and the individual is licensed by the Church itself, and has obtained, perhaps after much anxiety and long delay, a presentation, (and it is not immaterial here to notice, that so small are the livings of the Scotch clergy, that such a thing is hardly known once in fifty years, I believe, that to any of the family of the patron, the living is ever an object, or the Church entered by any of that class), what can be so cruel, — what injustice so great, as that the Church itself shall then allow the majority of the congregation at once, and arbitrarily, and without cause assigned, to reject the indivi dual, and to prevent even the Presbytery (in which the parish lies), from inquiring into, or judging of, the reasons of rejection. The Church disables itself from doing justice, — from repairing in justice. They cannot, by their act, take the individual on trials. The Veto is peremptory — is final. The people have at present the right, — and that they should have it is most fitting, — of submitting to the Presbytery every ground of objection of whatever kind, which they may entertain against the individual, to the clergymen of the Presbytery. But an arbitrary rejection, — especially when that is not a part of the election, — but a privilege, after hearing a person preach once or twice, it may be without further knowledge of him, — ruins the individual's prospects for life, — and sends him to spend in bitterness and misery a life of obscurity, marked and crossed only by the painful notoriety of this rejection, — which it is needless to say, will, in most cases, both deter other patrons from presenting him, and lead, almost as a matter of course, other parishes to refuse to take the man not deemed good enough by their neighbours. There was much cruelty in the regulation which introduced, and so suddenly, this new and singular ordeal. But the utter disregard for the interests of the licentiates soon exhi bited itself in a very remarkable manner. The promoters of the measure had never contemplated the possibility of licentiates daring to question the legality and competency of the Veto. And they thought that, if they submitted, the patrons could not then help themselves, or successfully resist ; for if the presentee, when re jected, withdrew, and renounced his presentation, the patron of course had nothing for it but acquiescence. As soon as It was found that some licentiates were proceeding to contest the legality and competency of the Veto Act, manifestations appeared of a spirit of intolerance and perse cution, which it was lamentable to see in a reformed Church. In various Presbyteries of the Church, a menace was held out, that if the licen tiates dared to dispute the power of the Church to pass and enforce the Veto Act, or presumed to maintain that the constitution of the Church was fixed by the authority and laws of the Legislature, the Church Courts would deprive them of their license; and thus, by depriving them of the right vested in them by the presentation, attempt to cut short all such discussions. In proportion as the discussion of the legality of the Veto Act approached, those menaces assumed a more definite form, and overtures were sent up to the approaching Assembly of 1838, to exact obedience to the Church (that was the phrase) from all preachers 98 or licentiates, by forcing them to submit to the Veto Act, under the penalty of being deprived of their license, for the crime of exercising their rights, both as British subjects and as members of the Church, to try in a court of law the extent of the authority of theChurch, in re gard to the statutory right of patronage, and the competency of the new measure, which had been passed. When the judgment of the Court of Session, in spring 1838, was pronounced, carrying along with it (It is believed) a greater unanimity of opinion on the part of the profession, than probably on any constitu tional question previously decided in a court of law, this intolerant spirit, — this practical tyranny of the worst character, — broke out in a very memorable manner. It was accompanied by a claim for power on the part of the Church, of the most alarming and formidable description. A resolution as to what was called the Independent Jurisdiction of the Church, was moved and carried, in the following terms, (May 23, 1838): ' The General Assembly having heard and considered the overtures on ' the Independent Jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland, agreed, by a ' majority, to the following resolution :* ' That the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, while they ' unqualifiedly acknowledge the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts ' in regard to the civil rights and emoluments secured by law to the ' Church and ministers thereof, and will ever give and inculcate impll- ' cit obedience to their decisions thereanent, do resolve. That, as is de- ' clared in the Confession of Faith of this national Established Church, ' the Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appoint- ' ed a government in the hands of church officers, distinct from the civil ' magistrate, and that in all matters touching the doctrine, government, ' and discipline of this Church, her judicatories possess an exclusive 'jurisdiction, founded on the word of God, " which power ecclesiastical " (in the words of the Second Book of Discipline), flows immediately "from God, and the Mediator, Jesus Christ, and is spiritual,not having " a temporal head on earth, but only Christ, the only spiritual king and ". governor of this kirk ;" and they do further resolve, that this spiritual ' jurisdiction, and the supremacy and sole headship of the Lord Jesus ' Christ, on which it depends, they will assert, and at all hazards de- ' fend, by the help and blessing of that great God who, in the days of ' old, enabled their fathers, amid manifold persecutions, to maintain a ' testimony, even to the death, for Christ's kingdom and crown ; and, ' finally, that they will firmly enforce submission to the same, upon the ' office-bearers and members of this Church, by the execution of her ' laws, in the exercise of the ecclesiastical authority wherewitb they are ' invested. '"1- * Acts 1838, p. 29. ¦f It may be right to notice that the whole of the first part of this resolution is not in the words of or taken from the Confession of 99 This resolution was carried avowedly and directly with the iriten- tion of maintaining the independent authority of the Church, as a prac- Faith, although it is accidentally worded so as to appear to carry with it that authority. The first clause oi the sentence is, — into the words, ' distinct from the civil magisuate,' inclu.sive. The remain ing and very material clause of the sentence which precedes the quota tion, (viz. the proposition as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the judica tories of the Church), is not taken from the Confession of Faith, In which there is no such proposition. In the Confession of Faith, chapter 30, after the words — ' hath therein appointed a government in the ' hands of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrite,' — there follows an anxious specification of the powers committed to these Church officers by the Head of the Church, which are wholly and purely spiri tual ; and accordingly, the whole of this chapter of the Confession of Faith, as to the government of the Church in the hand of Church officers, by the appointment of the great Head of the Church, is under the title of Church censures The second clause in this sentence of the resolution, — ' that in all matters touching the doctrine, government, ' and discipline oi this Church, her judicatories />osseM aw exclusive juris- ' diction founded on the word of God,' is not in the Confession of Faith at all. No such words, or any thing like them, are to be found in the Confession of Faith. This part of the resolution is not so worded as necessarily to import that this proposition is in the Confession of Faith, and doubtless such impression was not intended to be conveyed : But it requires very accurate and attentive examination of the sentence to arrive at the conclusion, that the authority of the Confession of Faith is not referred to for this proposition, as well as for the first clause of the sen tence. The doctrines in the Confession of Faith do not afford any war rant for such a claim. Whatever exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be claimed for the Church judicatories, must be derived from the statute 1592, which bestows ecclesiastical jurisdiction In very special and limited terms. See the 31st chapter of the Confession of Faith, as to Synods and Doctrine, referring to the 30th chapter, and limiting the objects of such synods to the matters set forth in the 30th. See also chapter 23, in which it is set forth. ' III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the adminls- ' tration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the ' kingdom of heaven ; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty to take ' order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church — that the truth ' of God be kept pure and entire — that all blasphemies and heresies be ' suppressed — all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline pre- ' vented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, ad- ' ministered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof he hath ' power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that what- ' soever is transacted in them he according to the mind of God.' This section fully proves that the Confession of Faith did not mean to lay down as a point of doctrine, any proposition as to the exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any particular Church judicatories The 100 tical matter, against the decision of the Court of Session. The speech of the mover of it referred throughout to the opinions of the judges, which were declared to be wholly inconsistent with the claims of the Church. The doctrine was publicly broached, that all parts of the Se cond Book of Discipline had received the sanction of the Slate, unless a positive statute could be produced rejecting any portion of it. It was contended, that the Church of Scotland, in allying itself with the State, was shackled by no bond, — and possessed all the authority and jurisdic tion which it chose to declare formed part of the inherent and unalter able powers of the Christian Church. Confession of Faith on all these matters is entirely general. It does not profess to lay down any thing as to the arrangements of any par ticular church, (it was not framed exclusively for the Church of Scot land), respecting ecclesiastical judicatories and their jurisdiction. It draws the distinction as to the spiritual government of the Church. And it does limit, as matter of doctrine, the jurisdiction which ought to belong to synods and councils, whatever these may be in any particular church : and a most Important part this is of the Confession of Faith, which, let it never be forgotten, is the statute law of the land. Having stated what is the spiritual authority of the Church, (see a subsequent note), and having specially and anxiously limited the authority and jurisdiction to be claimed for theChurch Courts, in respect of their spi ritual character, the Confession of Faith goes no further. It left to either Church (being intended as a Confession for both kingdoms) to regulate the distribution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction as might be found to be expedient. The arrangements for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, after being prepared by the Church, were specified and fixed by act of Parliament, which declared how the government of the Church should be conducted, but specially omitted that general and supreme authority which had been asked for in the Second Book of Discipline. Assuming, then, that this second clause in the sentence does not mean to appeal to the Confession of Faith, (in which no such proposi tion is to be found), it comes then to be an original and substantive re solution of the General Assembly 1838 in favour of its own jurisdic tion. And this is asserted and promulgated in order to lay a ground for denying the authority of the judgment of the House of Lords in a question between the Church and the subjects of the realm. ' Exclusive ' jurisdiction in all matters touching the doctrine oi this Church.' Take even this part of the declaration. It is manifestly unsound. The Church cannot alter any one article of the Confession of Faith — cannot add to the same. The doctrine of the Established Church is fixed by statute. So also as to government and discipline. The Church cannot alter the one or enlarge the other. It must administer both as fixed by statute, and within the limits, and according to the rules and forms prescribed by law, and in the maintenance of these matters as fixed by law, every subject of the country has a most material interest. But it is needless to pursue this point farther, for it is the practical effect of this resolution, in regard to the matters in question, which it is material to consider. 101 The language asserting these powers is uniformly vague. It may be applicable only to the spiritual superintendence of the particular Church over its members and ministers — as towhlch allChrlstlans must agree :— But it is comprehensive enough to embrace whatever the particular church or churchmen using it, choose to declare and hold to be within these inherent powers. In this instance, the direct declaration that the resolution was proposed in consequence of, and in opposition to, the judgment of the Supreme Court, which declared the Veto law to be against the statutes, which adopted the Church as an Establishment, or regulated its constitution, left no doubt as to the practical objects of this resolution. This resolution was followed up in a few days by the direction of the Commission of the Assembly in the Lethendy case, to proceed to settle and induct Mr. Kessen, in direct violation of the interdict of the Supreme Court, — thus illustrating the practical effects of these principles very speedily. The Assembly in this Resolution claimed, (in the words oithat portion of the Second Book of Discipline which the Legislature in 1592 did not sanction), ecclesiastical power, as a matter spiritual, flowing from Divine authority. I have adverted in the preceding Note to the misapprehension whlcji the Resolution may create as to the Doctrines in the Confession of Faith. But the reference to the Second Book of Discipline, in order to arrive at the conclusion that all Ecclesiajitical authority which the Church may have, is spiritual, and flows immediately from God and the Mediator, must be separately noticed. Let me request your Lordship's attention to the claims on tjie part of the Church, originally put forth in this part of the Secojid Book of Discip line, and, to the astonishment of all Intelligent men and of all friends of civil and religious liberty, revived in the nineteenth century, in order, on the one hand, to establish the right of the Church to maintain an Ecclesi astical power as independent of the decisions of the Courts of law on the statutes relating to the Church ; and on the other hand, by the exercise of a tyrannical authority over the licentiates of the Church, to crush the opposition which by that time had succeeded In establish ing by a solemn judgment that the Assembly h^d exceeded its compe tent authority in passing this Veto act. The Second Book of Discipline was framed afte^ the death of Knox, durjing the contests which were carried on with King James and his Court for the establishment ^f some form of Church government more nearly approaching to that of Geneva, than the form to which Knox had at last reluctantly assented. It was the production of different minds — -of men of far less, enlarged capacity for public affairs than Knox. Their views ran nafurajly into extren^es, fro|m the consequences of the struggles in which the clergy were engaged, and of the disgust produced by the deceit ful conduct of tjhe Court. The object of its franiers was to invest the Church with authority which might controul theStatein almost every de partment, or at all events relieve the Church from the risk so justly ap prehended, that whatever power was left with the Sovereign or the State 102 would be used against the Church. And the power claimed in this part of the Second Book of Discipline is, to be sure, an armoury from whence, if it forms any part of the standards, or is the depository and record of the constitution, of the Church of Scotland, weapons may be drawn, according to the taste and temper and notions of each comba tant or of each age, which will level with the ground alike the preroga tives of monarchy, the authority of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people. The memorable passage, — referred to in the above resolution, — which illustrates strongly the spirit of usurpation and the love of power, which a contest for an establishment is apt to engender, on the part of those who have contended with ardour and zeal, through the struggle, (In itself a glorious and Immortal struggle, one of the most memorable in the annals of the world, and full at once of encouragement and in struction for mankind in all future ages,) and the excesses into which the appearance of approaching triumph, even in the best cause, is apt to carry the human mind, is in the following terms : — ' Of the Kirk and Policie thereof in generali, and quhair it is different ' from the Civil Policie.* 1. ' The Kirk of God is sumtymes largely takin for all them that ' professe the Evanglll of Jesus Christ, and so it is a company and a ' fellowship, not onely of the Godly, but also of hypocrites, professing ' alwayis outwardly ane true religion. Uther tymes it is taken for the ' Godlie and Elect onlle, and sumtymes for them that exercise spiri- ' tual function amongis the congregation of them that professe the ' truth. 2. ' The Klrke in this last sense has a certaine power granted be ' God, according to the quhllk it uses a proper jurisdiction and govern- ' ment, exercisit to the comfort of the hole kirk. This power eccle- ' siasticall, is an authoritle grantit be God the Father, throne the Me- ' dlator Jesus Christ, unto his kirk gatherit, and having the ground in ' word of God ; to be put in execution be them, unto quham the splri- ' tual government of the kirk be lawful calling Is committlt. 3. ' The policie of the Hirk flowing from this power is an order or ' forme of spiritual government, quhilk is exercisit by the members ap- ' poynted thereto be the Word of God : And therefore is given Imme- ' dlatly to the office-bearers, be qubom it is exercisit to the weile of the ' hole bodie. This power is diverslie usit. For sumtyme it is severally ' exercisit chiefly by the teacharis, sumtyme conjointly be mutual con- ' sent of them that heir the office and charge efter the form of judgment. ' The former is commonly calllt potestas ordinis, and the uther potestas ' jurisdictionis. These two kinds of power have both one authority, ' one ground, one final course, but are different in the manner and forme « of execution, as is evident be the speiking of our Master in the 16 and « 18 of Matthew. 4. ' This power and policie ecclesiasticall, is different and distinct * Peterkin, p. 109. 103 » In the awin nature from that power and policie quhilk is calllt the civil ' power, and appertenis to the civil government of the common wealth. ' Albeit, they be both of God and tend to one end, if they be rlghtlle ' usit, to wit, to advance the glorle of God, and to have godlie and good ' subjects. 5. ' For this power ecclesiasticall flowis Immedlatlie from God, and ' the Mediator Jesus Christ, and is spiritual, not having a temporall ' head on earth, but onlle Christ, the onlle spirituall King and Gover- ' nor of his Kirk. 6. ' It is a title falslie usurplt be Antichrist to call himself head of « the Kirk, and aucht not to be attribute to angel nor man, of what ex- ' tract that ever he be, saving to Christ, the onlle Head and Monarch of ' the Kirk. 7. ' Therefore, this power and policie of the Kirk sould leane upon ' the word immediallie, as the onlie ground thereof, and sould be tane ' from the pure fountalnes of the Scriptures, the Kirk hearing the voice ' of Christ the onlle spiritual King, and being rewllt by his laws.' It will be ob.served how skilfully, In this paragraph, the proper spiritual authority of ' the Church' is blended and mixed up with the ecclesiastical polity and power of any particular church. The object of this ex position and assertion was to derive all ecclesiastical authority direct ly from the word of God — to refuse to accept from the State any Church constitution — and to deny the right of the State to regu late and determine such, or controul and mutilate the powers which the Church thought that it alone should possess ; and to claim for the Church Courts an ecclesiastical authority directly from God, which should exist from the first as independent of the State, and in no degree flowing from its enactments. 1 hat ecclesiastical authority ' in all mat- ' ters touching the doctrine, government, and discipline of this Church' (taking the words of the Resolution of 1838,) the Second Book of Dis cipline declared to be spiritual, — thus blending together two matters wholly distinct and separate, and claiming divine authority in every thing ecclesiastical for the Church, on grounds which excluded any reference to the authority of the State, in considering the constitution or powers of a national Church. The authors of this book then proceeded to set forth one system of ecclesiastical polity as flowing from the Word of God — claimed the power of election to ecclesiastical charges for Pres byteries — denounced patronage ' as contrary to the order which God's ' word craves' — claimed the whole possessions of the old. Church — pro posed to exclude from the right of voting in the national Assembly all but ecclesiastical persons, (thereby destroying one of the most valuable parts of Presbytery, as ultimately established in Scotland, viz- the mix ture of laymen in her Church Courts) — and proceeded to expound the jurisdiction which the Church was to exercise in virtue of its di vine power, in terms so comprehensive, that if this pretension, now re vived by the Church of Scotland, had been admitted, the whole power of the State would have been prostrated before it. In the heat and excitement created by the decision of the Auchterar- 104 der Case, the General Assembly Were led to adopt a resolution wKich appeared to ascribe to the Confession of Faith, (that admirable form of sound words,) the doctrines as to the power of the Church, which in reality were only to be found in the Second Book of Discipline, and to convey to the minds of the people of Scotland, that the Independent jurisdiction therein claimed had been recognized by the Confession of Faith, that Is, by statute, to the extent set forth in the Second Book of Discipline. But even if the authority of the Confession of Faith is not appealed to in this resolution for the assertion therein put forth re- ispecting the jurisdiction of the Judicatories of the Church, there is no doubt as to the extent of the claim itself The words of the resolution on this point are explicit ; the reference to the Second Book of Discip line exhibits both the nature and the grounds of the claim. It is very grievous to the mind of sincere Presbyterians to have such things declared as to ecclesiastical ]\ir'\sd\c,tion by the Assembly of their Church. But it implies no irreverent disrespect to think, that in mo ments of such excitement, and when thwarted in the exercise of incom petent power, errors may be fallen into which the Church itself would willingly bury in oblivion. It Is gratifying to those who shrink from this assertion of the power of the Church, to turn to and quote the sound and cautious descrip tion of the spiritual government appointed in ihe Church, which is contained in the Confession of Faith, from not one word of which can any warrant be drawn for the resolution respecting the ecclesiastical ju risdiction or authority of the Church of Scotland-* * C. 30 of Church Censures. ' I. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his Church, hath there- ' in appointed a government in the hands of Church officers, distinct ' from the civil magistrate.' (This is the passage just referred to in the resolution. Observe the description which follows of the govern ment so entrusted to Church officers by the Head of the Church.) ' II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are Com- ' mitted, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and • remit sins — to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the ' word and censures — and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the mi- ' nistry of the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall ' require. ' III. Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining ' of offending brethren ; for deterring of others from the like offences ; * for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump ; ' for vindicating the honour of Christ and the holy profession of the ' gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall ' upon the Church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals ' thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. ' IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the ' Church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament ' of the supper for a season, and by excommunication from the Church, ' according to the nature of the crime and demerit of the person.' 105 Your Lordship will recollect that the statute 1592, establishing Pres bytery — which does not name or recognize either the Second Book of Discipline or any code framed by the Church — proceeded in a very cautious manner, for it requires the presence of the king or his com missioner in each General Assembly ; and that his majesty or com missioner shall appoint the meetings of the same ; and establishes the General Assembly, Synods, and Presbyteries, with jurisdiction in the limited and cautious terms already quoted.* But in utter disregard of the notorious facts relative to the history and constitution of the Church, and to the history and fate of this Second Book of Discipline, the Assembly of 1838 put forth the alarm ing pretension of claiming independent jurisdiction to the extent and on the authority stated in that work, — and for what purpose ? Why, to assert their right to pass and enforce the Veto act, without the least reference to the question of their statutory powers under acts of Parlia ment, and to DENY the authority of the Courts of Law. And then, in that intolerant spirit, which ever guides the exercise oi power, which men persuade themselves they possess and are entitled to use by divine commission, they announced that they would ' enforce sub- ' mission to their power on all office-bearers and members of the ' church, by the ecclesiastical authority wherewith they are invested ;' intending, as was avowed, to deprive all preachers of their licences, and (as many things indicated) to proceed against all members of the Church, who might not acknowledge the competency of the acts which the court had found to be illegal and contrary to statute. I refer your Lordship to the Appendix for the reasons of Dr. Cook and others against this extraordinary resolution. Dr. Chalmers (alluding to my argument In the Auchterarder Case) said, in last Assembly, — ' The Dean of Faculty has told us of the « civil law, that he does not call for the immediate forth-putting of ' all its powers, in order that the Church may have time to retrace ' its steps. But I wish he knew all the diffculty we have had In This is the description of the government in the hands of Church officers, distinct from the civil, which the Confession of Faith declares has been appointed by the Lord Jesus, as the Head of the Church. The next and most important practical chapter (31) — of Synods and Councils, — which sets forth, that ' for the better government and further ' edification oithe Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are com- ' monly called synods or councils,' — contains those important definitions and limitations of the objects proper to the same, which connect that chapter (as its first section, indeed, necessarily does) with the 30th chap ter, as to the government appointed in the Church already quoted ; and the two add greater meaning to the twenty-third chapter, already quoted. The terms of the 31st chapter are indeed quite conclusive against all the present claims of the Church upon these points. * Robertson's Report, vol. 11- p- 215. 106 ' prevailing on the best and ablest of our ecclesiastics to refrain from ' the immediate forth- put ting of all the powers of the Church, in order ' that the civil courts may have time to retrace their steps. We could ' depose these refractory licentiates, or we could ordain, on the modera- ' tion of a call at large, a minister for Auchterarder. I do no doubt it- I do not doubt the existence and fierce ardour of the Intolerant spirit which Dr. Chalmers had such difficulty to restrain. 1 do not doubt the difficulty Dr. Chalmers has had to restrain those — who seem to have overpowered his original intentions as to the course which the Church should take — from proceeding to deposition or expul sion of all who disputed, in a court of law, the pretensions of the Veto act or the authority claimed by the resolution of 1838. I cannot doubt it : — For to my last hour I shall never forget the scene in the Assembly 1838, a few days after that resolution passed, when they summoned Mr. Young to the bar, though without notice of any charge whatever having been given to him, to be proceeded against for contempt, forsooth, of the ec clesiastical courts of the Church, — inasmuch that he intimated the judg ment of the Court of Session to the Presbytery of Auchterarder, and called on them, under protest as to all the consequences of refusal, to give effect to the judgment. I went to the bar of the Assembly as his Counsel, knowing that nothing but a resolute refusal to plead, when he had not been served with any charge or accusation, and a determina tion to compel the advisers of these proceedings, if they ventured to go on, to frame a charge, could save him from the fierce spirit of intolerance which dictated the proceeding. The disregard of all rules of justice, — the heat with which they were ready to proceed to any ex tremity against Mr. Young, without any charge or notice of a charge against him, makes me but too well persuaded of the spirit ' of the best ' and ablest of our ecclesiastics,' (! \) to doubt that they have indeed been with difficulty restrained from deposing these refractory llcentiates- That they were obliged in that case to desist, was owing to the eyes of some being opened, in the course of the proceedings, to the frightful per secution in which they were embarked. As Dr. Cook says,* 'although ' very much, I believe, from the disgust aud indignation which was thus ' excited, he was discharged without any sentence being pronounced ' against him, the object of dragging him before the Assembly cannot ' be doubted.' The movers in that measure were at length obliged to give it up, — having at last, after several divisions, but a majority of two, upon a vote respecting a question which they proposed to put to Mr. Young, whether he was prepared to state that a protest had been served upon the Presbytery, in order to protect his rights as a litigant. Not knowing the extent to which bis rights as a person at the bar of the Church might be affected by the question, I refused to let the question be answered, as no charge was served upon him. To another division they could not venture to proceed. I then proposed to bring them out * Note to published Speech, May 23, 1838. 107 of the whole scene, if an assurance was given to me, that they wished Mr. Young, out of respect to the Assembly and not with a view to ulterior measures against him, to answer the question ; but that Mr. Young would not admit that, for a step taken in the course of a litigation, the Church was entitled to hold any one amenable to them. With that proposal they gladly closed ; and so, with an explanation given to the person at the bar, the matter terminated. The minutes (see Appen dix) record a scene well justifying the expressions of Dr. Cook.* The attempt to proceed against Mr, Young, proved fully and com pletely the ^racijVa/ object of this resolution. ' Or we could ordain, on the moderation of a call at large, a mlnis- ' ter for Auchterarder.' This is another extremity, to which the eccle- .siastlcs referred to have been anxious to proceed, and which (if I un derstand the sentence rightly) Dr. Chalmers thinks would have been a constitutional course for the Established Church to adopt, when the courts of law have found that the patron had legally exercised his right, and that the rejection of the presentee without any trial or judgment by the Presbytery was illegal, and a violation of the duty which statute had imposed on the Presbyteries. The patron has forfeited his right or he has not. The courts of law have found that he has not. Is that a civil or spiritual question ? Is the Church to decide the other way, so as to give themselves the right of presentation ywre devoluto? If a Presbytery chooses to give the people a right to elect, it will be in the exercise of their right to present pro hac vice. Dr, Chalmers cannot mean to assert that there exists any other mode of appointing to a benefice or office of the minister of a parish. It will give the matter a more popular air and name, it will gratify the oppo nents of patronage, and It may obtain somewhat more support for the measures presently pursued by the Church than they have received, to give the people a choice in Auchterarder, by the Presbytery resolving to ordain the person whom the people may choose. But the procedure by the Church is precisely the same thing, viewed as an assumption of power, as if the Presbytery presented itself — for the act would proceed on the assumption that the patron had forfeited his right for that time, and that it had fallen to the Presbytery. No colour given to the mat ter for popular effect will alter that j-oint. Now consider for a moment the nature and results of this pretension. The Church adopts a measure which the courts of law decide to be against the statutes establishing in these matters the constitution of the Church, and fi-^ing the mode of the appointment of ministers to cures in the Establishment. Well, then, says the Church, we will appoint the ministers ourselves. We will ourselves ordain individuals to the pastoral charge of the people in these parishes, as their permanent mi nisters. We hold that the judgments are wrong, and cannot interfere Appendix. 108 with us : We hold that the patron has forfeited his right for the particu lar turn : Between us and the patfon the courts of law shall not decide : We therefore appoint or give the people, as from us, the power to elect. And with what view was this measure urged and pressed forward, — which Dr. Chalmers seems to hold out as constitutional, and of which the Assembly have only postponed the consideration till next year .' Plainly in the hope and expectation, that if the wrong shall be com mitted, it will ultimately be successful — that if a minister is once or dained, somehow or other he will get the emoluments and teraporaHa of the benefice — that the sight of the Established minister without thfe legal provision, especially if this result is hurried on In several parishes, will call for some remedy — that such a proceeding will extort conces sions from the Legislature — that the apprehension of what is thus held out by Dr. Chalmers will influence public men to give way to the pre tensions of the Church, or will induce patrons (whose disposition not to look to the exercise of their rights of patronage as merely a matter of private right, the Church of Scotland has such good reasons to know, and has of late so ill requited) not to claim the vacant stipends, but to yield them to the persons whom the Church may thus unconstitu tionally Introduce. 1 need not comment, I am sure, on the spirit, manifested in the above resolution, and in the procedure by which it was attempted to follow it up. If the Church is to be the sole judge of the measures which it may adopt, and of the extent of its jurisdiction, — if it is to claim independent jurisdiction, and refuse to acknowledge the decisions of courts of law, whenever it chooses to appeal to its spiritual authority — and if, more over, it is to enforce submission by all office-bearers and members of the Church to its decisions respecting important constitutional questions, on which the courts of law have decided that the Church has no authority, and compel obedience to the orders or doctrines it may choose to pro mulgate on such matters, — what a tyranny over the actions and minds and consciences of men ! That these ' able ecclesiastics ' are ready to proceed against members of the Church cannot be doubted, — the Resolu tion is pointed against all. I do not doubt that, if the Church proceeds in the spirit which now dictates its proceedings, it will require the ac knowledgment of this Veto act from all communicants, by making the enrolment of their names on the list which is to be used on vacancies, a requisite to communion, and will exact frOm all whom they can encoun ter, in regard to any Church privilege, the acknowledgment of their powers and jurisdiction. To me the notion of connecting the Sacrament of the Communion with the enrolment oi" one's name on a list of voters who are to be counted, whether they choose or not, on a vacancy, under this Veto act, in a manner which they deem illegal, and most Injurious to the interests of the-Church and to the peace and quiet of parishes, is most revolting. To others it may not be so ; to my feelings it is most re pugnant. I make not a doubt that it is intended to require In some 109 form or other this ' submission,' as the requisite to going forward to communion. The resolution includes patrons as well as licentiates; and when the former happen to be members of the Church, — then (In consistency, and if the authority is not to be exercised only against the weak and those more dependent on the Church), the vindication of their statutory rights will be regarded as disobedience to the Church, and submission enforced under the penalty of expulsion from the Church, or deprivation of Church ordinances. The words, ' memfiers of this Church,' in addition to and distinct from office-bearers, cannot have been used without some signifi cation. And Dr. Chalmers's acknowledgment of the impatience which wished to crush those, who presumed to try in a court of law the ques tion as to the competency of the acts of the Church, denotes an intoler ance on the part of those whom he had such difficulty in restraining from ' putting forth all the powers of the Church,' (ominous expression), which is not likely to view with much tenderness the more odious patron. Now, I request your Lordship calmly to consider what a view Is ex hibited of the danger to the liberty of conscience — to the freedom of Conduct, — and to the peace of the community of the Church, which may arise from the spirit manifested in the proceedings I have last advert ed to. Not attending to the sense in which the proposition has been used, great offence, I see, has been taken at the proposition — 'that every man in ' the country who adheres to its doctrines, is entitled to be a member ' of the Established Church.' This proposition, — which was not stated, irrespective of moral conduct, — is an important constitutional prin ciple, of which the Church is fast losing sight. A dissenting religious body may establish any set of opinions or notions upon any points which it chooses to adopt — belief in and submission to which shall be requir ed of Its members. An established chuffch is in a different position.* It is recognised and * Since the text was written and in the press, the concluding Tract of the Weekly Series from which I have quoted, has been published, with the names of the authors of the whole series, viz. Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Candlish, Mr. Cunninghame, two other clergymen, (Mr- Brown, and Mr. Guthrie,) and the last by Dr. Chaliners. The object of the Tract by Dr. Chalmers seems to be twofold, first, to make out that there really is no resistance to the law, — and, secondly, to represent the Church of Scotland as already a persecuted Church — to claim sympathy for the ministers and for the Church on that ground — to represent her spiritual authority and discipline as endangered, dis puted, and Invaded — to shew that these ecclesiastical questions are really connected with the spiritual government of the Church — that the Church has been acting wholly on the defensive, and only ' resisting the begin- ' nings of a system absolutely ruinous to the Christian character and 110 adopted forthe good of the subjects of thecountry — andall, (whosec wdud does not justly forfeit the right, and entitle the Church to debar them froni ' usefulness of the establishment ;" and as the full Illustration of all that the Church Is thus threatened with, he refers to an Opinion of mine which was read to the Presbytery of Dunkeld, to shew them that the induction of Mr. Kessen would be treated to be a contempt of Court, and violation of the interdict, and so had been published : and accord ingly thus winds up and closes his appeal to the people of Scotland, by the allusion to the fearful invasion of the independence of the Church, of which this opinion is the proof and illustration — ' We must not take our order from the Civil Court in things eccle- ' siastical, else where will it end .'' An eminent lawyer has recently given ' forth, that every man who subscribes our articles, and has a fair mnral ' character, has a right of admission to the communion-table. Let the ' Civil Court act upon this, (and where lies t! e difference between an ' order from that quarter to admit a man to be a partaker of ordlnan- ' ces, and the order to admit a man to be a dispenser of these ordinan- ' ces) — and every spiritual qualification on which we now insist, is ut- ' terly put to scorn. Christianity sinks down to a civil and an earthly ' standard. The whole Institute Is vitiated and secularized. Not the ' patrimonial Interest of the Church alone, but its very theology will be ' at the beck of legal functionaries. And what in the hands of our ve- ' nerable forefathers was a pure Church of Christ, one of the most ' illustrious daughters of the Reformation, will, trodden under foot ' of the Gentiles, become part and parcel of the kingdoms of this ' world.' I regret that my friend Dr. Chalmers should entertain apparently this estimate of the notions and views on such points of one who is a fellow communicant in the same congregation, and who has received the communion under his benediction and address, in assisting on these occasions- But the reference to the opinion proves that he has never seen it, but has taken on trust some of the nun.erous allusions to it made bv others. The opinion quotes that part of the deliverance of the Commission of Assembly in August 1833, by which they declared the Presbytery of Dunkeld to .serve Mr. Clark with a libel or accusation, for inclining to try the legality of the Veto, and to Interdict any Inter ference with his rights during the dependance of his action, in order to deprive him of his licence or expel him from the Church, if he did not shew penitence and abandon his legal proceedings: I then pointed out in the opinion that ' To construe any civil proceedings at the Instance of a ' member of the Church (whether minister, probationer, or laymen), ' intended to secure rights which he believes to belong to himself, and ' to give effect to a judgment which he hopes to obtain against the le- ' gallty of acts of the Church, into a contempt, would be sufficiently ' intolerable and oppressive. The legal proceedings will either be found * by the Courts of Law to be without ground, or will be decided to be ' well founded. In the latter case the party is right and the Church Ill its privileges) — all the subjects of the country adhering to Its doctrines, are entitled to be members of the Established Church, according to the ' wrong, except In their own opinion ; and the declaration by the * Church that the trial of any question ajalnst them on which they ' choose to promulgate an enactment, is a contempt punishable by the ' Courts of an Established Church ; and since that no one can be sure ' of being a member of the Established Church without abandoning his ' right to try points with the Church in a Court of Law, goes the full ' length of any pretension, however extravagant, of the Church of ' Rome.' I futher said, — ' What act of the Legislature, — what law of the Es- ' tablished Church, adopted by the State, has said that the trial of ' points in a court of law, by a subject of this country, (a member of ' the Established Church,) even against the Church itself, is an offence ' inferring loss of his rights as a member of that Church, whatever is ' the relation in which he stands to It ? If the acts of the Church ' shall be found to be legal, the law then will effectually protect the ' Church in their enforcement. But the trial of questions with the ' Church has not been declared (during the dependance of sich ques- ' tlons,) to be inconsistent with the right of the subject, to be, and to ' remain a member of the Established Church, and to continue in the ' relation In that Church which he has legally acquired. The deliver- ' ance of the Assembly attempts. Illegally, to trample on Mr. Clark's ' rights as a British subject ; for every man in this country who ad- ' heres to its doctrines is entitled to be a member of the Established ' Church.'' (This is the obnoxious passage.) ' The rights of Mr. Clark, ' as a probationer, in this respect, are as sacred as those of a layman. ' He was legally entitled to his license, and he holds it as a British • subject. The institution of the legal proceedings to which he has ' had recourse is one of the highest rights and privileges of a subject. ' The exercise of such rights, which belong to the character of a ' British subject, cannot be inconsistent with his right and his status ' as a member of the Church, any more than it would be with the ' rights and status of the patron, or any other member of the Church ' who chose to try points of law with them. It has been thought ' that probationers were a body whom It might be proper and safe ' to concuss and oppress. But the illegality of the proceeding Is ' the same as against an elder or any other member of the Church.' When this opinion has actually been used by Dr. Chalmers to bring out and set before the people of Scotland, with the sanction of his great name, the extent of the threatened invasion of the spiritual character and usefulness of the Church of Scotland, which he so pathetically de picts,, in order to awaken their sympathy, I may be excused from noticing the misapprehension as to this opinion which has given him such alarm. I am sure he will be glad to see the opinion of which he has re ceived such an account. He will see that there is not the slightest re- 112 polity, doctrines, and discipline, which the State has adopted and rati fied. Licentiates, ministers, elders, members of congregations, are ference to any question of discipline, or to the notion of civil courts en forcing the right to go to the communion table, when withheld by Church Courts in the exercise of their spiritual authority ; nay, that the account which has misled him had not the slightest countenance, even from any ambiguous phrase or expression in that opinion. And however much we may differ on the whole subject of the controversy, — and he is the last person to suppose that the utmost freedcan in stat ing the grounds of that difference Implies any diminution in the sin cere admiration, and respect which, in common with all, he knows that I have uniformly felt in regard to him, — he will, I know, regret that inaccurate quotations or statements of this opinion, in other pam phlets, should have so misled him. No doubt the correction of the error destroys the appeal which is built wholly upon it. But this is an illustration of the way in which matters, most essentially differ ent, are mixed up and confounded together. What connection has- any one of the points discussed in the foregoing pages, or in the re mainder of this publication, with the discipline and spiritual govern ment of the Church, as explained in the Confession of Faith, and enfor ced and observed in our Presbyterian Church ? How can the decisions of which Dr. Chalmers complains, or the ultimate acquiescence of the Church, as an Establishment, in the authority of the law, interfere with the discipline of the Church in any one particular ? In so far as Dr. Chalmers says that if the Church is called by the Civil Courts to admit a presentee, after being tried by the Church, and PROVIDED he is in their judgment perfectly qualified, it is the same thing as being directed to admit to the communion table a person whrnn they have found to be unqualified; he must adopt (so far as one can understand the grounds of an opinion which it is not very easy to follow,) the doctrine that the civil power has no right to preseribe any mode of providing the appmntment of ministers when an esta blishment is formed. Whatever the mode Is which the State fixes, it is either to be enforced or not. If it is to be enforced, can the Church complain that Courts of Law do enforce it ? If members of the Esta blishment think that the enforcement of such a matter is inconsistent with the rights of the Church, there is no alternative but adherence to a private religious body, ip which the State protects from all interference the authority of the Church Courts or superiors whom the body choose to :cecognize as supreme, to the extent of entire and exclusive regulation of all matters so committed to them. Really to say that there is no difference between the civil court di recting ' the ChurcK to admit a person rejected by them as unworthy of the communion table, and directing Church Courts to take on trials and admit and induct, provided in their opinion he is qualified, a min ister presented in the way settled by the State at the establishment of 113 not the less subjects of the country — possessing rights In regard to the Church itself, and the constitution and limits thereof, as esta blished by the State — which rights the Church cannot affect. The Confession of Faith affords a most perfect example of the character of these rights and of the position of the Church. The Church cannot withdraw one article of that Confession which Parliament adopted as the Confession of the national Church, or add anything inconsistent and Incongruous therewith. It cannot, indeed, add to it at all. It can not add a word or a doctrine to the statutory and national Confession of Faith. No member of the Church could be called upon to submit to any such act on the part of the Church. And yet members of the Established Church are told, that if they presume to maintain by legal proceedings the constitutional law of the Church, which acts of Parliament have established — if they venture to maintain the incompetency of any acts on the part of the Church, which exceed the limits of the authority committed to it by the State, and are injurious to their own rights ; — if, in short, they dispute the legality of any exercise of power by the Church — and that too, after the power claimed has been found by the House of Lords to be usurpation — they will be exposed to and visited with the censures of the Church, and cut the national Church is very surprising. Yet such is the line adopted in endeavouring to agitate in Scotland for support and sympathy in the maintenance of the position the Church has so unfortunately taken. That Dr. Chalmers and the leading members of the Committee have thus published and circulated this Series of Tracts, sufficiently identifies the opinions on which I have commented with the whole course of pro ceedings in the Church, the practical effects of which are so alarming. T am somewhat surprised, after disclaiming all fellowship with those whose ' watchword was the right of the Christian people,' that Dr. Chalmers should have given his name and sanction, and of course ten fold authority and weight, to this series of pamphlets, which advocate that very doctrine in the most earnest terms, and are written by ge,n tie- men who have taken the lead in denouncing patronage as unscriptural, and whose opinions were made so conspicuous at the meeting at Edin burgh in November 1 838, to which I have adverted. It will be admitted that this series of tracts, coming from the leading members of the Committee of the General Assembly, aided by three other gentlemen, who are the most active supporters of the measures in question, and declared opponents of patronage, or of any nomination without at least a veto, as wholly unscriptural, is of the utipost im portance in understanding the questions which are now in agitation. Lord Moncreiff said emphatically in his evidence before the Com mittee of the House of Commons in March 1834, that he knew of none of the learned clergy of the Church who objected to patronage on any scriptural grounds. I am afraid He must now be shaken in that persuasion. 114 off, if necessary, from communion with the Church, of wblch, as subjects of the kingdom, they are entitled to be members. To the Licentiates, the cruelty and oppression of such a course is ma nifest. But to all, the threat of such proceedings is deeply important. The use of Church censures — the effect on the minds of men of being brand ed and marked out by the condemnation, whether direct or general, of the Established Church, — and the moral intimidation, and actual Influence in gaining ascendancy, produced by the declaration, that to dispute the power of the Church in any given case, is to deny its legitimate authority as a branch of the Church universal — have been, in other times, the fa vourite and the successful weapons, by which ecclesiastical usurpation has been prosecuted and have proved most dangerous means of over coming the liberties of mankind, and the rights both of states and individuals. Has there been any case yet in which the threat has been made in circumstances more unjustifiable, or betraying a more intolerant and usurping spirit than by this resolution of the Assembly .? The consti tution of the Reformed Church of Scotland was regulated and settled by a series of statutes — confirmed in most particulars at the Revolution, — and re-enacted and defined, as to the particular points out of which this discussion has originated, by the Act of Queen Anne. That consti tution has subsisted without change ever since. Irregular and most anomalous attempts. In the early part of the last century, indirectly to defeat the law, were gradually abandoned, by the good sense, by the en lightened wisdom, and by the Christian discernment and temper of the Church itself Suddenly, and without call, a mighty and revolutionary change In this regulated and adjusted system is at once made by the act of the Church itself. Still it was in the form of a regular act of the Church, in the exercise of authority supposed to be given to it by the State, and in the belief, on the part of many who concurred in it, that this exercise of authority was constitutional and competent. Its competency was regularly tried, and the measure solemnly ad judged to be an excess of power, and a violation of statutory duty ex pressly imposed on Presbyteries. Then it was that this resolution was come to by the Church. It was not Introduced in a season of general disturbance in the social system, resulting from great constitutional struggles, when the limits of different jurisdictions are not settled, and. when the general dislocation of the different authorities of the State admits of, and sometimes justifies anomalous and extreme proceedings. In the present day surely, if such a result is ever to be attained, the authority of law is established, and the means of preventing disturbance in society, by the incompetent acts of any Body in the State, recognized and appreciated. And yet, because members of the Established Church resort to a constitutional and legal remedy against an act on the part of the Church, as contrary to law, 115 and injurious to private rights, the Church declares that the appeal to the tribunals of the country is inconsistent with duly to the Church — that to question the competency of the acts which these tribunals have found to be illegal, is Contumacy, and that by Church censures, depri vation of ordinances, excommunication, &c., they will enforce submis sion to measures thus declared to be illegal. Thus, in the present day, the great safeguard and security for the peace of the social system, and for the preservation of order, viz. the efficacy of law to redress wrong, to repress usurpation, and to maintain the due restraints on all bodies in the State, without which disorder must ensue — this, the greatest and most beneficial charac teristic of the social system of Britain, is declared at once to be in consistent with the power of the Church, and the members presuming to resort to this source of protection, and to this mode of maintaining the limits of Ecclesiastical Authority, are to be denounced as worthy of Church censures, leading, it may be, to public personal condemnation of the individual by his spiritual authorities — a result which many minds cannot contemplate without the liveliest alarm and terror. Your Lordship may have been informed of this resolution of the Assembly at the time. But great as was the surprise which it occa sioned in England, I have sometimes found that the real character of the proceeding was misunderstood, and the dangers to be appre hended from it consequently underrated. For many looked merely to the assertion of independent jurisdiction which it contained, and however extravagant such a sally In the present day, the practical character of the proceeding, and its immediate effect on the rights and liberties of the people of Scotland, if followed out as its authors intend, and indeed immediately attempted, were not so generally per ceived. The real danger lies in the declaration, that the Church is to enforce submission to its acts, when found by the regular tribunals of the country to be incompetent and unconstitutional, by the penalties of Church censures and by exclusion from Church privileges — that the authority and influence oi the Established Church are to be exercised against the subjects oi the country for venturing to appeal to these tri bunals — and the power of discipline and spiritual superintendence to be used against Individuals, in order to enforce the unconstitutional acts and usurpation of the Church. The resolution is not to be regarded merely as a vague ill-timed de claration of independence, intended to mark the sullen discontent of the Church with the decisions of the courts of law, but neither calculated nor designed to lead to practical results. It was not the mere ebulli tion of temper and disappointment. It was adopted with the steady purpose of enforcing submission to the Church. Ministers, elders, — all, whether judges or private parties, were informed that, as members of the Church, submit they must to the acts of the Church, which the law had found to be incompetent. The framers of this resolution knew well the influence which the menace of Church censure and of exclusion from Church privileges will ever exercise on the minds of thousands. 116 probably of most men who are attached to any particular Church, and were aware of the repugnarice with which most will contemplate being among the first to encounter this odious brand. They speculated on the probability that concessions would be made to them by the State, in order to avoid the lamentable results which the excesses of the Church would occasion. They believed that indifference to all such subjects might induce many, even in Scotland, to think — ' it is surely better to yield to ' the Church, than to let them run on into excommunication and slrai- ' lar scenes ;' — while they calculated on the neutrality of England, from the disposition which generally exists there, to regard most matters con nected with the Scotch Church as mere provincial questions, which have no real bearing on the general interests of the country or of the Church of England, and as to which the best policy is rather to give way at the time than to encounter any new points of discussion- Accordingly found ing their expectations of success and triumph on all these grounds — looking steadily to the means by which ecclesiastical usurpation in other times has been successful — the framers of the resolution pointed to im mediate and practical results, the more formidable that they were direct ed against individuals personally, and not intended directly to produce any public conflict of jurisdiction, which might have retarded rather than aided the objects in view. It Is in vain to disguise the character, or to disclaim the objects, of this resolution. That it is the resolution of a Reformed Church, does not al ter the fact, viz. that it is intended to secure and effect the extension of ecclesiastical power. That the Church adopting such a resolution is the best of Protestant institutions, is no infallible security against the consequences of error, excess, and extravagance on the part of its mem bers in peculiar states of the minds and humours of men. That the ministers of the Church are zealous, pious, and useful, does not ensure that at all times they shall not be carried away by the predominating spirit of churchmen, and ready to break through "all constitutional bounds, in order to exalt the power of their Church. The resolution itself admits of no mistake as to the spirit in which the general pre tensions of the Church are asserted. But the determination to exer cise the power of the Church over the minds and opinions of men. In order to enforce submission to its pretensions, by visiting with the odious and fearful stigma of exclusion and censure those who dispute their le gality, is a part of it which bespeaks irresistibly the intolerant and re lentless spirit of ecclesiastical usurpation and tyranny. To be sure we are told, that ecclesiastical power cannot be the object of a Church which has a popular constitution, and which is contending, it is said, only for the rights of the people, and for popular privileges. I shall advert presently to the effect which the measures for which they are contending will have on the influence and power of the clergy as a body. But when, I should wish to ask, has a church been unable to defend its usurpations by specious pretexts, and by an imposing appeal to objects of the highest and most sacred character ? The fact is the same, be the Church of popular constitution, or Epis copal. The usurpation and exercise of illegal power, which the trlbu* 117 ' nals of the country have decided to be incompetent, is to be enforced by the Church, by its spiritual authority, and the submission of the minds of men to its power is to be effected by the resort to Church censures, exclusion from Church privileges, and expulsion from the Church. This is the subjugation which the spirit of ecclesiastical usurpation has always attempted to effect; and while it lasts, the effect on the minds of men — on the civil and religious liberty of the country, will not be less burdensome and disastrous ; not less injurious to the in terests of true religion, and to the national character, because it may be exercised by the Church Courts of Presbytery, and not by the prelates of a proud hierarchy. Perhaps in its ultimate consequences it may have evils as widely spread, and as difficult of correction. The ' best and ablest' of those ecclesiastics, whom Dr. Chalmers has found it so difficult to moderate down even to the tone of his motion, appeal continually, in all their speeches and resolutions, with fond regret, and with enthusiastic anticipations of swaying again the same power, to the ascendancy of the Scottish Church from 1638 down to the discomfi ture it experienced from Cromwell, as the triumph of all their princi ples, and the practical consummation of all their views and hopes. The leading supporters of these .opinions among the clergy of Edin burgh, all took part in the meeting for Commemoration of the Assembly 1638, to which I have already alluded, — and the authority, power, and measures of that Assembly, were constantly and most earnestly referred to, as realizing the views of the state of the Presbyterian Church, In the perfection and purity to which the speakers wished to restore it. And where such are the avowed views of the clergy in the metropolis, who advocate the present measures of the Church, one may easily under stand the opinions of the active directors of all these late measures. I shall quote a passage, already referred to, from the revised speech of Mr. Candlish, one of the Committee of Assembly to carry on the pre sent negotiation with the government respecting the Veto, and one of the deputation sent to London for that purpose. Mr. Candlish, as he is one of the ablest, is also one of the most candid and plain spoken advocates of the changes which are now pressed upon the consideration of Government. His statements, there fore, deserve great attention, as exhibiting more fully and plainly perhaps than the speeches of others, the real and ultimate objects to which the present measures of the Assembly point. There may be less of the practised debater in his speeches on these subjects than in the speeches of others : But there is no attempt to conceal the object which he believes and understands to be commom to them all. His recorded opinions, therefore, are of the utmost importance, as proving beyond a doubt, what it is that the leading and most active of the clergy have in view in their present agitation. The passage I allude to is as follows : — ' And we have reason to be ' thankful that, since 1638, that constitution has been preserved. It is ' true that never, since the period of 1638 — never, I may say, has ' that constitution had alogether fair play. For a brief period after 118 ' the rising of that Assembly the Church enjoyed prosperity, and, ' it may be, in part abused it. It is possible that success, sudden ' success, after long trial, may have led to some excesses ; which ' men, with no soul for entering into the noble spirit breathing ' through these times and transactions, may point out in their petty ' cavils, and try to hold up to scorn, while they might rather cast a veil ' over such minor blemishes, and thank God for the great work done. ' After this period of prosperity came a period of persecution — godliness ' was well nigh suppressed in the Church by the arm of arbitrary ' power, and corruption in manners spread and increased by the ex- ' ample of royal and noble profligacy — the Sabbath was desecrated, and ' the inferior orders of the clergy had, in a great degree, lapsed into ' latitudinarlan sentiments and immoral conduct. At the period of the ' Revolution, it will hardly bs maintained now by any that the .lystem ' of our Church, as our wise and pious forefathers framed it, was fully ' realized. The settlement of that era by no means perfectly embodied ' the fair image which they had conceived. A leaven of Episcopalian ' corruption, as affecting both the manners of the people, and the doc- ' trine and conduct of the ministers, still remained, and the state un- ' doubtedly stretched forth its hand, in the management of spiritual ' affairs, beyond its legitimate province. Then came the union of the ' crowns, the influence naturally exerted by intercourse with our richer ' and more powerful neighbour, and the gradual alienation of many of ' the upper classes, by their southern education, and transference of the ' parliament, as well as the court, to London. I need not remind this ' meeting of the circumstances which have since hindered the full and ' fair play of the constitution of the Church — the obstacles interposed ' by the arbitrary enactment of patronage, in the reign of Queen Anne; ' and, worst of all, by the secession of those men of old, who had too ' good cause indeed for leaving a tyrannical Church, but who, had they ' foreseen these two things — on the one hand, the extent to which their ' descendants would go, in disowning this Church altogether ; and, on ' the other hand, the revival with which it has pleased God to bless our ' Church in these latter days, — would, I earnestly believe, have borne ' more patiently their tribulations, and continued to witness within our ' Church, rather than to witness against it. However that may be, I ' mention this thing merely, as shewing that the constitution of 1638 ' never had full and fair play.'' Mr. Candlish must, of course, have well considered those portions of the ecclesiastical constitution and powers claimed by the Church in 1638, and in her period of prosperity thereafter, which he regrets were not re-incorporated with the constitution of Presbytery, when finally settled in 1688, after the model and in terms of the act 1592, — and which distinguish Presbytery, as then settled, from the more exalted views of the Covenanters in l638. I am glad, at least, that he admits that Presbytery, as settled at the Revolution in 1690, (even with the change made then as to patronage), does not warrant the views and claims which he now puts forth. This is an important practical admission to those who understand and hold Presbytery, as then settled, to be ' the Church 119 ' of Scotland,' and know no other form of it ; — though Mr. Candlish, as a minister of that Church, is not satisfied with the settlement of 1 688. And I think it is also extremely important to notice the declaration, that, in attempting to fix or regulate that constitution, the State stretched forth its hand, in the management of spiritual matters, beyond its legitimate province : — For such a declaration admits, that the State did fix and regulate the constitution of the Church, even in spiritual matters, and did interpose in a way which excludes much of what is now claimed. The above passage, like every such straightforward exposition of principles, made without regard to the light in which others may view the expediency of such avowals of the speaker's opinions, is most valu able for the admissions it contains, of what is now the established con stitution of the Church of Scotland, as settled by law. But this and similar expressions of opinions, acquire additional importance when taken in connection with a declaration by last Assembly, to which I must in the sequel advert, adopted as the ground upon which a certain body of Seceders were ready to join the Church, provided such a con cession were made to them. The Assembly of 1638, — justified, no doubt, as every great movement against oppression and practical despotism always is, by the exigency of the period, and by the necessity of breaking through the persecution and tyranny of which the nation complained in regard to religion, no matter by what means — claimed however and exercised (be it remembered) the power of setting aside acts of Parliament, and of overturning institutions established by statute. Is that power — used at a period of a great na tional struggle for religious freedom, against the encroachments of Popery and against a most galling persecution — a part of the ecclesiastical consti tution of which we received so faint and imperfect an Image at the Revolu tion in 1688.'' The Assembly of 1638 assumed at once the complete con troul and dominion over the press, — ' and by virtue of their ecclesiastical ' authority,' (so plastic isthe term for the purposes of encroachment), pro hibited all printers within the kingdom, to print any thing which mightcall m question their proceedings or opinions.* No doubt some of the lead ers knew well that such power could neither be justified on any sound principle of ecclesiastical authority, or of toleration and liberty. But * ' The Assembly considering the great prejudice which God's Church ' in this land hath sustained these years bypast, by the unwarranted ' printing of libels, pamphlets, and polemlcks, to the disgrace of religion, ' slander of the gospel, infecting and disquieting the minds of God's ' people, and disturbance of the peace of the Church, by virtue of their ' ecclesiastical authority, dischargeth and Inhibiteth all printers within ' this kingdom to print any act of the former Assemblies ; any of the ' acts or proceedings of this Assembly ; any Confession of Faith ; any ' protestation, any reasons pro or contra, anent the present divisions and ' controversies of this time, or any other treatise whatsoever, which may ' concern the Church of Scotland, or God's cause in hand.'' 120 notwithstanding the protestation of Baillie, that it was not meant to fetter conscience, yet the Church did not rest satisfied with their own act, but resolutely pressed on this intolerant enactment, until they obtain ed from Parliament at last, in 1646, a statute,* which carried into full effect one great object, which, in the intervening years from 1638, they had anxiously laboured to secure. It is needless to pursue further this notice of the proceedings from 1638 to 1652. The Covenant for the defence of Presbytery in Scot land was soon converted into a new covenant for the extirpation of Episcopacy in England. All persons, not in the ministry of the Church, -were prohibited from publicly explaining the Scriptures — a prohibition levelled against any dissent and all dissenters of every kind, whether Independents or not ; and while it was admitted that, in a sea son of persecution, (when the Presbyterian clergy had themselves pro pagated their own views by private meetings), such things might be al lowed, yet after a Church was regularly constituted, it was declared that the practice should be discontinued, as prejudising the Established minis try, and destroying the unity of Christian congregations: — And in order that family worship might not be the pretext for such, it was declared. * ' The estates of Parliament, presently convened in the fifth session ' of this first triennial Parliament, understanding from the General Assem- ' bly, the great abuse of printing and publishing books, lettres, and others ' concerning religion and the kirk without license : Therefore, for re- • medy thereof, inhibits and discharges all and every one to presume ' hereafter to print or reprint any declarations, protestations, covenants, ' confessions, letters, acts, or any thing issuing from kirk judicatories, or ' any books, treatises, histories, sermons, commentaries, disputes, or other ' papers whatsoever treating of religion, or any point of religion, in doc- * trine, worship, or discipline, or concerning the kirk, the officers, go- ' vernment, or conditions or affairs thereof, without special license and ' privilege of the General Assembly, or their Commissioners, or such as ' shall have power from them ; and that under the pain of confiscation •• of the said books and other papers printed without license aforesaid, ' and of the presses, types, and other moveable goods whatsoever belong- ' ing to the printers thereof: the one-half thereof shall belong to the « kirk, to be made use of and employed upon pious uses, beside any fur- * ther personal punishment of the said printers that the Lords of secret ? Council, or the Committees of Parliament or Convention, shall think ' fit to inflict : and the salds Estates ordains magistrates of burghs where ' printers dwell, upon information from the General Assembly, their « Commissioners, or others having power from them, to arrest, take, and ' apprehend the said printers, contraveners of this act, with the books ' and other papers aforesaid, to be presented to the Lords of Council, or ' Committees of Parliament or Convention, to underly the law for the ' said offence ; that after trials thereof, the said books and papers, and ' all other goods aforementioned, may be confiscate in manner aforesaid, ' and the offenders further punished at the discretion of the said judges.' 121 that family worship should be limited to members of the same fiimlly.. Many other illustrations might be given of the views and objects of the Church at this period, and of the nature of that system or scheme of a church, which, it was admitted by Mr. Candllsh, was not realized In many particulars at the Revolution 1688, and of those matters, the regulation of which the State at that period, by the interference complained of, did not allow to belong to the ' legitimate province' of the Church. That the Presbyterian Church, as settled at the Revolution, was ma terially different from the scheme of the Presbyterian Church as prac tically administered by the Assemblies from 1638 downwards, to the time of Cromwell, is most true. As an historical fact, the matter is beyond dispute. But few of the advocates of the present measures admit the fact with the frankness of Mr. Candlish ; and while aiming at common objects, they wish to represent the declarations of 1638 as an adopted and recognised part of the constitution of the Church. We have been accustomed to consider, and justly, the excesses, into which the Presbyterian Church then rushed, as the natural effects of the long-continued and oppressive attempts to compel the clergy and the people of Scotland to submit not only to Episcopacy, but to the gradual introduction of Popery under that disguise — of the injuries of which they had so much cause to complain, and of the conduct of the prelates themselves and their partlzans, which as usual were regarded by the oppressed party as the necessary effects of the system, and not of the character of the men themselves, and of the circumstances In which they had acquired and were defending power, contrary to the feelings of the great bulk of the people : — Such is the light In which all true Scotch men view the excesses which followed the overthrow of prelacy. But there are other lessons which we must not altogether lose sight of, in studying that portion of history. While we regard with vene ration the learning, talents, and piety of the great Presbyters at that period, to whom Scotland owes her Confession of Faith, her Catechisms, and the origin of her parochial schools, and acknowledge their most enlightened zeal for the advancement of learning ; and while we find in the excesses into which even they were hurried, additional reasons for abhorring the persecution which produced such effects on their minds, let us also see in their ultimate errors, greater reason for main taining, as paramount rules of public policy, the principles of toler ation, when it is found that even those who had suffered from per secution were hurried into the fiercest intolerance. It is startling to find the leading advocates for the measures which the Assembly are now pursuing, avowing the desire to reclaim the authority which the Church began to exercise in 1638, and to bring, by their present measures, the Church back to the system and the power which they were maintaining when Interrupted by the usurpation of Cromwell. And it is an instructive picture of the turns which the minds of men take in periods of excite ment and of love of change, and of the strength with which the desire for power and influence returns on ' ecclesiastics,' to find some of the Presbyterian clergy in the present day, proclaiming their anxiety to 122 regain in such altered times, the supremacy which the Church wielded to its own destruction two centuries ago : — While the enemies of the Church are gladly seizing on these ill-timed displays of their encroach ing spirit, as additional means of attacking the principle of an Esta blishment. Let us not underrate the necessity of opposing these schemes, because the risk of their success may appear slight. Triumph they may not. But the effect on the national mind, and on the interests of religion and of the Church may be most prejudicial, even from partial success or from temporary encouragement ; and he is a bold man who ventures In the present day to foretell the exact extent to which any extreme opi nions may for the time carry men, or the exact crisis and turn at which the counterbalancing causes will prevail and prevent further evils. Of this we may be sure, that in precise proportion to the extent to which the ' ecclesiastics' of the Church obtain influence and power, will be in creased the hostility of another portion of the community either to re ligion itself or to an Establishment. Neither is it an immaterial con sideration to one zealously attached to Presbytery, that such excesses on the part of the Presbyterian Church will increase the strength and numbers of Episcopalians in Scotland, to whom the errors of Presbytery will for the time always give an advantage. If I mistake not, there are no insignificant symptoms in most of the recent speeches of Dr. Chalmers, that he views with some alarm many of the manifestations of extreme principles which have lately broken out among the bulk of those who are at present prosecuting the Veto sys tem. I do not allude merely to the concern with which, along with so many others, he may justly regret that the great and most important object of Church Extension has suffered from the distraction, to say the least, occasioned by these anomalous discussions. His speeches contain evidence of the distrust and alarm with which he views many of the opinions and doctrines of those with whom in this measure he is, most unexpectedly, for the present co-operating. There is in his published speech, in introducing his motion in the last Assembly an obvious struggle in his mind, to find some grounds peculiar to himself, and opposed to the opinions of those with whom he Is acting, in order to explain and account for the result to which he had at last arrived, contrary, as he admits, to repeated declarations of his views, well known to many taking a deep interest in these questions. He disclaims, in the outset of his speech, any identity of views with any party in the Church. He announces that he thought that the Veto Act had been incompetently passed, and had wished application to be made to Parliamentfor authority to pass it, so far as regarded the rights of patrons, (an admission I must presently advert to), and expresses his re gret that his opinion had been overborne. The resolution of the previous year as to the Independent Jurisdiction of the Church, and the language and views with which it was supported, appear to have little favour in his eyes. ' We therefore have no sympathy with those whose deference ' for an Establishment rests on merely civil or political considerations. 123 ' But we have just as little sympathy with those who, in the spirit of ' defiance, or of coarse and blustering independence, tell us of the pre- ' rogatives of the Church ; and rather than not be constantly parading ' these, whether in or out of season, say they would give the State en- ' dowments to the wind — one of the greatest moral calamities which ' could befall the myriads of a then churchless, and, in the most em- ' phatlc sense of the term, deeply suffering population.' Yet, curiously enough, by a process of reasoning which he thinks rests on other grounds than those adopted by bis supporters, he arrives at pretty nearly the same results, and has gone as far as any of them : — In explaining his notions of the relative position of a national Church to the laws made by the State in reference to It, and at the period of its establishment, he maintains — that ' even the law of patronage, right or wrong, is in force, ' not by the power of the State, but by the permission of the Church, ' and with all its fancied omnipotence, has no other basis than that of ' our majorities to rest upon.' He seems desirous to think that the dread of the assertion of independent jurisdiction had created alarm in England and among the friends of the Church in Parliament, only irora the misapprehension that there was some affinity between it and ' that ' fearful spirit of insubordination and anarchy which now threatens, all ' over Europe, the demolition of every ancient structure, whether poli- ' tical or ecclesiastical.' After insisting that the views of your Lordship and Lord Brougham are wrong. Dr. Chalmers thinks the object of his motion is correctly de scribed by the declaration which follows : ' The more of ignorance, the ' more of rashness, the more of reckless disregard to the dearest princi- ' pies of our Church, to the dearest and most cherished feelings of our ' people, can be pointed out in these speeches, the greater is our urgent ' demand for a Committee ; and, what is more, the brighter is our hope ' of a prosperous issue to its negotiations. If we succeed in demonstrat- ' ing of this sentence, that altogether it is grounded upon error, is it ' too much to hope of an enlightened legislature, that It will grant a ' new law which might correct the interpretation, or rather misinterpre- ' tation, that has been made of their old ones ?' If the main object of his motion, and of the Committee he moved for, had been merely to satisfy the colleagues of your Lordship, that your opinion was altogether founded in error, the proceeding would have been comparatively harmless. In all such controversies, it generally happens that much of popular delusion and misapprehension arises from the vague and undefined use of general terms. We have now got the ' watchword' of ' non-intrusion,'' — as if that term were applicable only to, or necessarily implied, the power of peremptory rejection bestowed by the Veto act. This is a gross abuse of the term, in the only sense in which it was ever used or employed by the Church when they came to act upon it. If the phrase, ' the principle of non-intrusion,' means that a patron has no right to insist upon his presentee being settled in a parish, whe- 124 ther there is a valid objection to him or not, the principle is Indeed a fundamental one. No one can be intruded. The Church hears, re ceives, judges of, and sustains all objections, if these are, in its opinion, well founded. The protection is complete. The Church, with whom the term originated, exercises the protection, and its practice shews Its meaning. But the term is now employed without any disguse, to de note and to require a right oi rejection on the part of the people, which they are to exercise according to their pleasure. Let us not then be misled by the constant use of this general phrase — the principle of non-intrusion. It is only in referenceto the actual measure which the Church has proposed, that it is necessary to consider the authority for the proposition included in this phrase. The term may include the most inconsistent and contradictory opi nions. Most of its leading advocates really mean by that phrase the abolition of patronage — or the principle of the necessity of a Call by the people in order to constitute the pastoral relation. Such are the avowed and recorded opinions of most of the supporters of Dr. Chalmers's mo tion — of many of the members of the Committee, and of those who have been preparing the way for that motion, and for the movement which prompted or dictated it. But the real and practical question for consideration is, the merits and competence of that particular plan which the Veto act embraces — to which the Church has declared its resolution to adhere — which it does at present enforce — for which it asks sanction from Government, and from Parliament the power legally to introduce it. There is no proposition to give more power or jurisdiction to Presby teries, so as to enable them to take into consideration any matters which they cannot now consider and decide upon. The object is quite different. From the manner in which some of the recent discussions have been conducted, it might be supposed by those unacquainted with the nature of these questions, that the ' non-intrusion principle' really was a point different from that which was discussed and decided in the Auchterar der Case, and that the Church, in maintaining that this was a principle settled in the Church of Scotland, the recognition of which they ask from the State, were not now reasserting the matters disposed of by your Lordship in deciding that cause. Considerable advantage has been taken, I find, in so representing the matter. But this representation of the nature of the points now at issue is most erroneous. One great point in the Auchterarder Case, raised and pleaded by the Church itself, was this ; viz., that the non-intrusion principle, meaning thereby the necessity of giving effect to the will oi the peo ple, without any reference to or any judgment of the Presbytery upon the reasons which may influence the decision of the people, was a prin ciple in the Church of Scotland evidenced and recognised In her acts, constitutions, and practice. The Veto act states this expressly in the preamble. This was, specially, distinctly, and separately, 07ie great ground plead ed on the part of the Church, in the Court of Session, and even more anxiously upon Appeal. Your Lordship considered* by itself, this defence of the Veto act, viz., ' That it is a fundamental law of the Church of Scotland, that no per- ' son shall be intruded on any congregation contrary to the will oi the ' people,' — and you examined carefully ' the evidence as to this being ' a fundamental law of the Church of Scotland.' The Church exhibited most anxiously and fully, and In elaborate de tail, the whole evidence to which they could appeal — their acts of As sembly — the proceedings of their Church Courts — the opinions of Church writers — every species of evidence to which they could appeal. And on examining the proofs which the Church exhibited in support of the Proposition, You deliberately arrived at the conclusion, that such a principle as that of non-Intrusion, meaning thereby the right of the peo ple to reject a presentee whom they did not like, and the power of the Church to sanction that objection, was not, and had never been, the law of the Church of Scotland. The Church has chosen to re-affirm that proposition, — and they require of government and Parliament to pass some general legislative measure, on the ground, not that this ought to be, but that it is, a fundamental law of the Church. I trust that it will ever be kept in view, that your Lordship has pro nounced your solemn opinion, after full discussion, that such has never been the law of the Church. It is not easy to suppose that your col leagues can be induced to take a different view of the question. I am persuaded, that with Parliament the opinion of your Lordship will have more weight than any other authority which can be adduced to it. There are many persons, however, who may not study the question through the medium of law reports, and for whom it may be right to make some more general historical remarks. In endeavouring to establish in 1833, (when he brought forward the first plan of the Veto) the principle of a negative on the part of the people, or the principle ' of non-intrusion,' as he then equally termed it, Dr. Chalmers alluded but to three authorities, — 1st, To the Second Book of Discipline, in which, in fact, election is claimed for the Presby teries : 2d, Then to an act of Assembly in 1649, when patronage was abolished by statute, and the power of regulating settlements given ex pressly by act of Parliament to the General Assembly ; and, 3d, To the act of Parliament 1690, — a reference which shews that, at that time. It was not thought either strange or unconstitutional to appeal to the statute law in order to ascertain the constitution of the Church. In truth the authorities are but scanty to which reference can be made, even if others that are referred to shall be added. It is unnecessary to consider these, for the discussion is exhausted. But it is important to remark, that it is only at two different periods, * Opinions, p. 53. 126 and for two specific but different objects, that we find in the history of the Church, after the establishment of Presbytery in 1592, any indications on the part of the clergy of a wish to give effect, in any form, to the will of the people; and it is necessary to look to the circumstances of the tinnes, and the objects for which it was asserted, when the expressions used at these periods are referred to as establishing any principle in the understanding of the Church. The prevailing feeling in Scotland, during the latter part of the reign of James the Sixth and after the accession of Charles the First, was, that the object of the monarch, and of bis ecclesiastical advisers, was to introduce Popery, — or at least most of its doctrines and many of its superstitious ceremonials. That the apprehension was well founded cannot be doubted; but whether well founded or not, it was very general, and produced the growing and at last unconquerable aversion to the Hierarchy, by means of which it was seen that the court was endeavouring to carry forward their designs, and which appeared to be not only the fitting, but subservient instrument for promoting these purposes. A singular sort of establishment had been formed, partly Episcopal, partly Presbyterian, and it was undoubtedly the object of the Crown and the bishops gradually to establish Episcopacy, against the wishes and feelings of the people. The patronage in the hands of the bishops and the Crown (and the patronage of most churches was either with the one or the other) formed a great engine for accomplishing the scheme which the court had in view. Men were placed in parishes who fa voured, not merely Episcopacy, but secretly the more extended views of Laud and Spottiswoode; and, in an unsettled church, or at a period when the restraints of law were disregarded, and the object of the court was to introduce both a form of worship and doctrines abhorrent to the feelings and opinions of the people — when the question lay between Presbytery and Episcopacy, if not Popery — there were dangers to be dreaded from the Crown and the bishops possessing the patronage nearly of the whole churches of the country, which can never again occur. In 1638, the declaration of the Assembly, against the settlement of ministers contrary to the will of the people, was a declaration, in truth, against patronage, which the Church continued to denounce until they obtained, first, an act of Parliament as to the churches which had belonged to the bishops; and, lastly, a general statute abolishing patronage in general. The Church wished to effect a great change. That was their object. And it is really in vain to appeal to declarations made at this period in order to prove what was the constitution of the Church, either contemplated and settled when Presbytery was established in 1592, — or what is the consti tution of the Church of Scotland, respecting the rights of the people, after the struggles and changes of the seventeenth century had passed away,and when the regular constitution of the Presbyterian Church, under the act 1592, was fully and finally settled at the Revolution. The short period of Presbytery from 1638 was followed, after the Restoration, by twenty- eight years of Episcopacy, characterised by oppression, cruelty, and per secution, which sealed the doom of that form of church government for 127 ever, and an end was put to the risk of its revival, though much jealousy remained against those who were its secret partlzans, and gave rise to enactments utterly inconsistent with the principles of toleration. But whenever the Presbyterian Church came to consider any form of church government, and to lay down any rules as to the appointment of ministers, they did not recognise in the people more than a right, on cause shewn to the Presbytery, to object to the persons offered to them by those with whom ought to lie the power and duty of selection. Even after the abolition of patronage by statute, your Lordship recol lects that the General Assembly did not then allow the people to appear in any other character than that of objectors ; and the Presbytery were to judge whether the objections were founded on ' causeless prejudices.' In short, as Sir H. Moncreiff says, the people were placed in their pro per situation and character of objectors, — the only place ever assigned to them by the Church. The most remarkable illustration of the complete understanding of the Church upon that point is, in truth, afforded by an act of Assembly in 1596, — a few years after the statute 1592 gave the power of colla tion to Presbyteries, and imposed on them the duty of taking on trials the presentee. The Assembly complained that ' because by presentations many ' forcibly are thrust into the ministrie, upon congregations, that utter' (confess) ' thereafter that they were not called of God,' — in other words, were not led to undertake the sacred office from any proper motives or with sufficiently serious views, — therefore, the Assembly proceeded to desire that ' none take presentations to benefices without advice of the ' Presbytery of the bounds' : — The Church thereby establishing, with great propriety, prior trials and examination of those who should be candidates for benefices. But the notion of a right to reject is not once alluded to, or the original claim in the Second Book of Discipline, which the Church knew had been excluded by the statute 1592, again brought forward. This act of Assembly proceeds to define at length the points to be attended to in the ' trials of persons to be admitted to the ministrie ' hereafter ;' and in the enumeration of points to be attended to, the will of the people is not even hinted at, although every point is stated which ought to be inquired into, or could be made the ground of ob jection. The act of Assembly then proceeds to declare, that ' because men ' may be found meet for some places who are not meet for others, it ' should be considered,' i. e. by the Church Courts, ' that the principal ' places in the realm be provided by men of most worthie gifts,' &c., — ' and that none take the charge of greater number of people than they ' are able to discharge.' The Assembly then points out all the matters of actual qualifications in the individual presented, in reference to the benefice to which he is nominated, which ought to enter into the decision of the Presbytery to which he is presented. 128 These are all matters of qualification in the individual, according to the estimate which the Church then took of qualifications ; and matters for the decision and judgment of the Presbytery. Of course, when there was no regular system of previous trials and of licensing preachers, individuals might be placed in benefices to whose learning or principles no objection, at the time, was known, — but who, from the want of any preparatory system of training, were in truth little aware of the nature of the duties of the ministry. Yet, even In that unsettled state of things, it is very remarkable that not an indication is given of any right, on the part of the congregation, to refuse to accept the indi vidual presented. Accordingly, this act of Assembly is only appealed to, as shewing the extent to which the Assembly claimed jurisdiction for Presbyteries, in determining on the qualifications and fitness of a presentee for the charge to which he might be nominated. But that is a matter essen tially and widely different from a right on the part of the people to reject, without either the power of inquiry or controul by the Church. ' Intrusion contrary to the will of the people,'' — is the expression in the Second Book of Discipline, and in 1638, which is appealed to in the present discussion. This expression is seized hold of, and at once declared to mean an absolute right to reject, — such as the Veto law of 1834 bestows. It certainly was not so understood in Dr. Chalmers's own motion in the preceding year. But one must look to the meaning in which the term was used by those who introduced and "employed it on the very few occasions in which such an expression is found. Sir Henry Moncreiff has reviewed most elaborately the various regulations which the Church laid down at the times when they had authority from the State to make regulations for the appointment of ministers, or when they meant to say how they proposed to proceed in cases in which the patron had forfeited or would not exercise his right. And in no one instance is the will of the people, taken by any regulation of the Church to import mere dis sent, expressed without reasons, and on which rejection was at once to follow, the exercise of which the Church could not consider, and the rea sons of which the Church could not judge of or investigate. It is a fact equally remarkable and important, that in support of such an interpretation of the term will, as importing a Veto or right to reject, there is not one regulation or practical rule or mode oi appeal ing to or admitting that will which affords the slightest resemblance to the Veto now contended for, not even when patronage was abolished. Indeed, until the doctrine of right In the Christian people was brought forward, it was quite impossible that any such notion could exist in re gard to the sense in which the Church used the term will of the people. The doctrine of right, revived in the present day. Sir Henry Moncreiff has completely proved, was unknown In the Church till the period of the Secession. Now, the meaning of the term, will of the people, 129 (assuming that the use of the term on two or three occasions is in truth of any importance), depends entirely upon the extent of acknowledg ment, which those using it, made as to the relative position of the Church and the people, and of the right which the latter possessed. As the right was, as Sir Henry Moncreiff says, solely a right to object, — as in no case did the Church ever acknowledge any other species of right, it is perfectly clear that the expression was not used in reference at all to their position of objectors. The expression was used, — first, as a protestation against the arbitrary and violent intrusion of Popish and Episcopal ministers, when the power of the Court and the persecutions of the Bishops prevented the people from stating any objections whatever, — and when the bishops settled those whom they chose, without the least reference to the characters of the men selected, or the objections which both the congregations and the Presbyterian clergy had against such scandalous appointments :* — and, secondly, it was used in order to make a declaration against pa tronage generally, and with a view to succeed in obtaining its abolition. And whenever it was abolished, the Church reserved to a select Body, (the Session), the right to propose the minister, and admitted in the people, even after the abolition of patronage, only the right to object, — the Church judging of the objections, as Lord Moncreiff in 1833 explained. There is not a clearer or more complete demonstration on any point, than in Sir H. Moncrelff's work, to which I have referred, upon this part of the subject. The accuracy of his account of the Act of Assem bly 1736, the last of the very few occasions on which such a general expression occurs, is so completely established, that I observe any refer ence to that Act of Assembly seems not to be a favourite topic in de scanting on the right of the people. -j- But without resuming matter, which, after all, was the very point considered in the Auchterarder Case, I wish to confine myself rather to the views which were not touched on in the discussion of the legal question. And In this light it is that I press the remark, that the value of a general expression about the ' intrusion against the will of the peo- ' pie,' depends entirely upon the extent of the right then admitted in theory or practice to exist in the people. The notion of a right to reject is utterly inconsistent with any con troul or check or power of review, — for there is no right to reject, if an other may judge of the reasons upon which you propose to exercise that right. * Surely we are not to lose sight of the conduct complained of when this expression was used in 1638, and when we know how the bishops had been attempting to fill the parishes with the adherents of Episco- ?acy, by preventing any mode of objecting by the clergy or people. 'he Bishops had then .the power of collation. ¦(- See Appendix. 130 To establish this point is accordingly one great object in the series of Tracts published by the members of the Committee appointed to fur ther the object of the resolution of the Assembly. Dr. Chalmers, it is true, in the note to his speech, which I shall presently quote, admits the necessity of most important and sweeping resolutions on the sup posed right to reject : But he joins in writing these Tracts, of which those on this part of the subject contend for an absolute right of rejec tion on which there shall be no controul. Thus in the very tract which precedes Dr. Chalmers's closing appeal upon the subject — the line of argument following up what had been urged in former tracts, is thus summed up by Mr. Cunningham : — ' If It be true, as has been proved from Scripture, reason, and experi- ' ence, that the pastoral relation should be formed only with the consent ' of both parties, — and if it be absurd, as it manifestly is, to say that ' the people consent, unless they have at least a Veto upon the pre- ' sentee, then, on these grounds, all the objections by which the Veto ' law has been assailed, may be dismissed at once as frivolous and un- ' founded. If this be the very smallest share of influence which, upon ' any thing like right principles, the Christian people ought to have in ' the settlement of their ministers, it can be no objection to the exercise ' of this right in reason, whatever it may be in law, that it imposes a ' certain restraint upon the patron in the exercise of his absolute right ' of nomination, or that it may sometimes be attended with injury and ' inconvenience to presentees. Nay, if the Christian people are en- ' titled to this share of influence in the settlement of their ministers, ' the probability of their sometimes using it to their own injury by re- ' jectlng a man who might have proved a useful and edifying minister, ' can be no good reason why they should be deprived of it, for such a ' principle would sanction universal despotism, and tend to keep the ' mass of mankind in a state of perpetual slavery. There is nothing ' unreasonable in the people being entitled to dissent from a presentee ' without being called upon to state and substantiate the reasons of ' their opposition ; 1st, because experience abundantly proves, that the ' Christian people of a parish may have solid and reasonable grounds, ' that not only warrant, but require them to oppose the settlement of ' the presentee as their pastor, which they could scarcely state, and far ' less substantiate, in a court ; and, 2d, because, if the people are to ' state and substantiate the reasons of their opposition, while the ' Church Courts are to decide upon the validity of these reasons, this ' is virtually to deprive the people of all right whatever in the settle- ' ment of their ministers, for nothing can be properly called a right, the ' effective exercise of which depends wholly upon the judgment or discre- ' tion of another party. If the people, when a majority of them dissent, ' must give in their reasons, and substantiate them to the satisfaction ' of a Church Court, then the congregation or the majority of them, ' have no more weight or influence in this matter, than any single ' member has. ' The dissent of the congregation ought certainly to be founded in ' their own minds on reasonable grounds ; but if their dissent is of no 131 * avail unless they can substantiate the grounds of it to the satisfaction ' of another party, then it is not their refusing their consent that ex- ' eludes, whereas, upon every ground of Scripture, reason, and common ' sense, the refusal of the people's consent ought to be sufficient to ' prevent any man from being admitted as their minister.' There cannot be a doubt as to the accuracy of this reasoning on the premises on which it proceeds. Such limitations as Dr. Chalmers pro poses, are utterly inconsistent with the whole principle of the Veto law of 1834, so far as any right to reject is acknowledged to reside in the people. His motion of 1833 was also utterly at variance with the doctrines now maintained by those who compose his Committee, and with the resolu tion of the Assembly in passing the Veto in 1834. There is no doubt of that. And therefore, in considering whether the Church of Scot land ever acknowledged the will of the people to be supreme and con clusive for exclusion, by any occasional use of a general expression, the point of importance is, was the right to reject in all circumstances, in a question with the Church, and as opposed to any Inquiry by or respon sibility to the Church, acknowledged by the Presbyterian Church to be in their people, in the sense in which, as matter of right. It is now con tended for — contended for on the grounds explained by Mr. Candlish, as to the standing of the people in the Church of Christ .'' On this point, the very fact that the doctrine of right was first broached — as Sir Henry Moncreiff says, at the time of the secession — is perfectly con clusive. Your Lordship, along with the Government, must consider whether you are to acknowledge this right in the people, on the grounds and to the extent contended for. The Committee of the General Assembly have in their ' Statement' proposed, — as I presume, they have in their communications with the Government, — that the sanction of Parliament should be given to the principle of a right of rejection on the part of the people, without check or controul by the Presbytery. But that proposal, as expressed in the printed statement of the Committee, proceeds on certain import ant principles which the Committee announce they desire to establish. One is, (p. 5, 6) — ' It might therefore be enacted, without reference to * the question of what the law hitherto has been, that it shall henceforth ' be understood to be competent for the Church, without forfeiting the ' civil rights or privileges of its establishment, to act in accordance with ' its own declared principle of non-intrusion. Such an arrangement ' would clearly shew what is the utmost extent of the limitation which the ' Church has sought to impose on the exercise of patronage; and at ' the same time, the authority of the Church would he reserved entire ' to regulate, within that limit, its own proceedings in this matter ac- ' cording to its own judgment. It m'\^t farther be necessary to pro- ' vide that, whatever may be the rights or interests of other parties, the ' power of the Church judicatories to judge of the qualifications of min- ' isters, and of their suitableness for the parishes to which they are ap- ' pointed, must be maintained inviolate. I 132 ' It is to be observed, that, in dealing with the Government and the ' Legislature on such principles as those now laid down, the Committee ' do not in any degree compromise the authority of the ecclesiastical ju- ' dicatories, as it may be exercised in the matter of the settlement of ' ministers: nor in any way commit the Church, farther than theChurch ' has been inclined to commit itself. We do not ask the State to enact ' and ordain the present law of non-intrusion, but simply to allow it, in ' respect of civil consequences, as enacted and ordained by the Church. ^ ' We require, that, to a certain definite and specified extent, the pa- ' tron's right shall be held to be limited, in order that the Church shall ' be able to give effect to the will of the people. But within that maxi- ' mum, it belongs to the Church itself to do this, according to its own ' regulations. For it is to be kept in mind, that in the whole of this ' negotiation, we are dealing with the -will of the people, not in its rela- ' tion to the authority of the Church Courts, but merely in its relation ' to the right of the patron. Suppose our object gained, — we have it ' determined, that the will of the people, as recognised by the Church ' itself, shall be held as a valid restriction on the will of the patron ; — ' that, in so far as the patron's right might interfere, the Church shall ' be held to have power, without fear of losing her established statutes, ' to give effect to the will of the people, as expressed in her own courts, ' and subjected to her own jurisdiction.' Another very important principle on which the proposal of the Com mittee proceeds, is — that the mode of giving effect to the will of the people, and to the principle of non-intrusion, shall not be set forth in any statute, but l^t to the authority of the Church Courts to be regu lated and carried into effect in the way they think best. The Com mittee does not wish that the Legislature, in altering the law to the ex tent of giving power to the Church to give effect to the principle of re jection, should fix or settle any thing. The Committee do not propose that the Legislature should enact the Veto law of the Assembly, or in deed decide or establish any thing whatever. And, above all, the Com mittee do not wish that the Legislature should define or fix any thing as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Church, but only that the power of the Church to give effect to the will of the people in the Church shall be considered and recognized ; while the whole measures for the appoint ment of ministers which are to be framed on that principle, either now or at any future time, by the Church, shall be left wholly to the Church! I Such a plan will concede everything, and fix nothing. If anything is to be done by Act of Parliament, surely it is fitting to put an end, if possible, to further agitation and discussion on such questions. It is surely high time to ascertain and fix what measure it is which the Church means finally to recommend : And if that ought to be agreed to, to fix and establish at last some final system on so important a point. Above all, when questions are raised as to the Independent Jurisdiction and legislative power of the Church, leading to results so alarming, it is surely necessary, even if the practical point ought to be yielded on which they have taken their stand, to decide by Act of Par- 133 liament, to what extent the State means to recognize any such jurisdic tion. Simply to declare by statute that effect must be given to the will of the people, and to acknowledge the Inherent and independent power which the Church claims to give effect to that will in the way they may choose, and to lay down any system for the appointment of ministers within that general principle, which now or hereafter, from time to time, they may think proper to adopt, would be to acknowledge that jurisdiction to the full extent now at issue, and to leave every thing as to the future constitution of the Church regarding the appointment of ministers, not only unsettled, but as an open question for constant dispute and discussion. This is precisely the result which the Committee desire. In the first place, their ' Statement' anxiously explains that their object is to prevent any interference with or definition or limitation of the authority of the Church. In the second place, the Committee do not wish the Veto law established and fixed as a permanent measure, or as any final settlement of the question. It is well known that a very large portion of those who have concurred in obtaining and defending the Veto act, are not by any means satisfied with it, either in principle or in its working. 1 have shewn the opinions of Mr. Candlish — the views of Mr. Dunlop are re corded in his evidence before the Patronage Committee in 1834, and In various debates in the Assembly in subsequent years. Dr. Burns (a leading speaker in support of Dr. Chalmers's motion) declares in his evi dence before the Committee, that the Veto act will never do ; and in his published speech in support of the motion, said, ' I am no Veto ' man.' All the anti-patronage party are greatly dissatisfied with a mea sure, which they value only as a stepping-stone to the ultimate abolition of patronage.Accordingly, the motion proposed to be made in last Assembly, in order to obtain the abolition of patronage, and to carry into effect Dr. Chal mers's own principle, that it exists only by the tolerance of the Church, (a principle which wholly disarms him as an opponent of the competency of its abolition at once by an act of Assembly), was only waived on the express and distinct assurance that the existence of patronage at all was to be an open question in the Committee, and in the negotiation which may follow with the Government. Again, all those who think that there must be a consent by the peo ple, in order to establish the pastoral relation, view the Veto as incon sistent with the first principles which ought to regulate any such measure. The ' Statement' or circular of the Committee, sufficiently proves that they know well that the Veto is not to be considered as a question set tled or decided upon by the Church, and that the Committee desire that nothing shall be proposed or arranged on the footing that the Church is to adhere to the Veto law, such as it has been passed and is acted upon. The ' Statement' is indeed a singular document, considering that the Assembly not only passed the Veto Act several years ago, but have, in defiance of the judgment of the House of Lords, taken their stand upon it, and declared their resolution to enforce it. 134 The Committee take all points to be quite open. They discuss whe ther it will be most expedient to apply to Parliament for a repeal of the Act of Queen Anne as to patronage. The reasons for not press ing that measure are reasons of expediency only, affecting the proba bility of success ; but there Is not one single sentence, in point of principle, against the abolition of patronage. On the contrary, the Statement proves, 1st, that the Committee hold, most correctly, that the non-intrusion principle, as that is interpreted by them, leads neces sarily to the right of election ; and, 2d, that they regard this as the proper measure. Then the Committee discuss the second plan which had presented it self to them, viz. to require the consent of the people by a positive call. ' The sanction of the legislature might be sought to the requisition on ' the part of the Church, of a positive call by the people. In many re- ' spects this might be regarded as a material improvement upon the pre- ' sent state of the law (!) of non-intrusion. From the first, there has ' been a pretty general feeling in the Church, that the positive call is ' preferable to the provision oi the late Act of Assembly, as having less ' of the appearance of an innovation, and as placing the people in a '¦fairer and less invidious position.'' This passage is a sufficient demonstration to every one, that the Veto Act was not part of the regulation of Calls ; that the title so given to the act of Assembly was a mere disguise ; and that all that part of the ar gument in the Auchterarder Case, which sought to find a defence for the Veto Act In the principle of the Call, was totally inapplicable and unsound. This Is no unimportant admission, considering the efforts made to induce the Court and the House of Lords, and still more indi viduals, to believe the very reverse. I think this passage also proves, that in the opinion of the Commit tee, the Church is not in truth contending for any particular rule or principle as aheady fixed in the constitution of the Church, but is, un der the shew of standing out for some rule as irrevocably fixed at the period of the Reformation, endeavouring now to devise what rule upon the subject it is most expedient to adopt. The reasons stated by the Committee for not proposing at once a ' requisition,' as they term it, on the part of the Oiurch, of ' a positive ' call' by the people, are also reasons of expediency alone, respecting what is best for obtaining the general act which they desire to have passed. One reason for not proposing a ' positive call' is, that a question might arise as to what amount, qf concurrence by the people should be re quired ; and in that discussion, it is said, the legislature might go farther in the way of interference than it might be proper ' to give them an ' occasion for doing.' ' If, indeed, the legislature were disposed to leave ' the point altogether indefinite, recognising the power of the Church ' to determine either generally or in reference to each particular case, ' what should be regarded as a sufficient call, and simply declaring that ' the act of the Church, requiring what it might judge a competent call, ' whatever that might be, should carry civil consequences ; in that case, ' the matter in question between the State and the Church would be 135 * placed on a very satisfactory footing.' And accordingly, the principle that ' a positive call by the people' is the true method of enforcing the principle of non-intrusion, is not only not abandoned by the Committee, but Is obviously that which on the whole they approve of, and wish to obtain the power practically to establish. The proposal that the legis lature shall simply acknowledge that the Church is entitled to give effect to the will of the people — committing the mode of doing this entirely to the Church, and shall also acknowledge the power of the Church to judge of the suitableness of the presentee, in all other respects over and above qualifications, in the widest sense of that term — is plainly intend ed to leave it open, as it unquestionably would, to all to begin to agitate the question of such a Call — and is designed with the view of reserving to the Church the power of declaring that until the presentee receive the assent of the majority (whose dissent at present operates as a re jection) the pastoral relation cannot be constituted in the way to pro mote his usefulness, or to secure for it the divine blessing. The true object of the Committee is to obtain an acknowledgment of the power of the Church, in general terms, so as to enable them to require the call. If the design is not to leave this and other questions open — if the necessity of a call Is not to be kept in reserve as a source of further dis cussion, and for further measures — if the principle of the necessity of a call or assent is to be abandoned — then why should not the legislature, when applied to for an alteration of an existing law, declare and settle finally, in order to prevent all further discussion, what the precise measure is which it will sanction, as the mode of giving effect to the will of the people. But to any such precise and definite adjustment of the question a great proportion of the supporters of the resolution of last Assembly would be decidedly opposed ; for they are not satisfied with the Veto act, and hold it to be liable to the most fatal objections, founded on the ' fundamental principles' of the Church, as understood by them. The Committee admit that such has been a ' pretty general feeling in ' the Church.' Dr. Chalmers, as the author of the Veto law, must have made with deep regret the admission, that his measure has been so unsatisfactory, generally speaking, to those acting with him ; and he must have encountered a very strong resolution to go further, and to ob tain 'a preferable measure,' before he could have been Induced to promul gate a statement which seems only to create more distrust as to the mea sures which are pressed so vehemently on Government and the Legislature. But it is notorious that the Veto act was never approved of as the right measure, by many leading members of the Committee and their deputa tion to London. Their opinions have been openly avowed. These opinions, and all the views giving rise to them, remain as the source of further and future discussions to which the Church of Scotland is yet to be exposed. The extent of these opinions I have already pointed out ; and at a meeting in Edinburgh, soon after the Assembly, attended by most of the Edinburgh clergy who support these changes, it was suffi ciently announced and demonstrated that to these opinions they are re- 136 solved to adhere. The only clergyman, of the number present, who spoke, declared his hostility to patronage, ' as the root and spring of all ' intrusion ;' and from that declaration of views there was no dissent. And that clergyman accordingly furnishes one of Dr. Chalmers's series of non-intrusion Tracts. In the General Assembly, as already mentioned, the discussion of the question of the abolition of patronage was waived for this year, only on the understanding, publicly stated in the Assembly without contradic tion, that that question was to be an open point in the Committee, and in the negotiations with Government. Another very material point is, that the Committee have no power to bind the Church or Assembly to any measure which might be introduced at the beginning of next session, and before the next Assembly, limited simply to the enact ment by statute of the Veto act, or restricting the power asked for by the Church to that measure alone. On the contrary, the Com mittee could not hold out any such assurance ; and every one con nected with the state of opinions knows well, 1 st, that a statute fixing down the Veto as the final settlement of these matters, is not the mea sure which a great proportion of those voting for Dr. Chalmers's motion would sanction or tolerate; and, 2d, that the intention is to go on either to obtain the abolition of patronage, or the ' requisition' of a positive call or assent by the people. In the above remarks, I have not Included the Supplementary Note circulated in London. The Committee having first prepared their Statement, and appointed a Deputation, ' it appeared proper to the mem- ' bers of the Deputation to offer a few remarks in explanation of some ' parts of the Statement referred to.' There can be no assurance that any suggestion coming from a part only of the Committee will be generally agreed to, or that it represents the aggregate opinion of the Committee, much less of the parties in the Church whom the Committee represent. The Deputation throw out two suggestions, — ' For the sake of distinctness, and in order to illustrate the Com- ' mittee's views, and to bring them to a precise point, it is submitted ' that the Legislature might be asked in substance to enact, " That in " all cases in which the presentee of the patron oi any living in Scot- " land shall have been rejected by sentence of any competent Church " Court, in respect of the dissent of the major part of the male heads " of families in communion with the Church, members of the congre- " gatlon, in the vacant parish, all right and interest of the presentee in " the presentation granted to him shall cease ; and if the patron shall " not, within the period competent to him by law, present another qua- " llfied person, the right of presentation shall for that turn fall to the " Presbytery, jure devoluto!" ' It should be provided also and enacted, " That it shall be always " understood to be in the power of- the competent Church judicatories " to take, treat, and judge of the qualifications of the presentee, and '' his suitableness in all other respects for the charge to which he " has been presented." 137 The latter suggestion is plainly intended to leave open both the ques tion of consent or concurrence by the people, and every similar point which can be raised. To leave to the Church, by express and general enactment, to consider, whether the individual selected is ' suitable ' in ALL other respects,' (in addition to qualifications), ' for the charge < to which he has been presented,' is most manifestly meant to reserve to the Church to reject upon any ground whatever in the individual case which they choose to adopt, and to relieve the Church Courts from the necessity of acting in a judicial character, or proceeding upon any judicial ground. If the individual has not a sufficient expression of consent, though he may not have been vetoed, — or if the Church choose, without pro nouncing any judgment on his qualifications, to say, — we take as con clusive the fact that a small minority have dissented, — we look to their opinions as most important, and we will not settle, whatever be the qualifications of the presentee, — or we do not like this person's general politics, — in short, upon any ground whatever the Presbytery will be entitled to reject, although they must have acknowledged the individual to be eminently qualified for the charge, if they had been compelled to proceed on any ground which could be reduced into precise or intelli gible language. Dr. Chalmers has said that the Presbyteries may reject a presentee, if they choose, because he is not six feet in height. But even that rea son need not be assigned. Is it not enough that they may reject the presentee (although duly licensed by another Presbytery), if his stature is a physical deformity, so as in their judgment to render his appearance in conducting public service an outrage to the feelings of propriety ? The proposal last quoted appears to me to be the most insidious and alarming which has yet been made. It not only leaves the whole power, as to the nomination of ministers, in the Presbyteries, but to any one who has seen the practical working of the system in Church Courts, when the check and controul of regular judicial process and judgment is once withdrawn, and all are allowed to act on their own notions of what is expedient in reference to individuals, the tendency will be to throw the power of election into the hands of the Presbyteries. It was well argued by one of the most zealous supporters of the Veto, the Rev. Professor Brown of Aberdeen, in the Assembly of 1836 (in opposing a motion against patronage) that any measure attended with the re sult of throwing influence into the hands of the Presbyterle's, would be the very worst which could be devised, and the most unsatisfac tory to the country. Practically, the effect of bestowing this vague, in definite, and unlimited power on Presbyteries would be this, — that the majorities in the parties in Church Courts would in many cases reject every man not of their own party. Such a scheme, in truth, destroys the right of appeal. For if the Presbytery of the bounds are to be entitled, without assigning a reason, to say, that for the good of the parish, they do not think that the in dividual is suitable, and that such is their declaration with the local 138 knowledge of the parish, of what avail can any appeal be to a superior court, when law shall entrust this power to the Presbytery, who are, it will be said, best acquainted with the facts .'' I am well aware of all the great and solid advantages resulting from the principles of Presbyterian Polity which vest the administration of the government of the Church in Courts composed of the ministers sit ting in Presbyterian parity, (it is seldom that the lay members of Pres byteries interfere in such questions.) But the whole experience of human nature, and the result of all experience as to the working of the system of Presbytery in Scotland, just as strikingly and forcibly prove the absolute necessity of regulating by precise and definite limits, the authority which is to be committed to these popular courts or assemblies — that to give them unlimited and undefined power to reject whoever was in their view not suitable in all respects, and to impair the controul of a right to appeal from the reasons stated by the Presbytery as insufficient for judgment, would most infallibly give a licence to the indulgence of all the hostility and bitterness of feeling, which ecclesiastical parties have been, by too fatal experience, found to engender. Majorities would reject individuals, who they knew would not be adherents of that system of ecclesiastical polity by which alone, the contentions of party lead them to think that the whole glory of the Church, and the good of their fellow-men, can be promoted. It is quite impossible to conceive any form of words so curiously vague, and so mysteriously indefinite, unlimited, and comprehensive, as this proposal in regard to the general power which the Depu tation, by this suggestion, — thrown out as a sort of innocent and unimportant addition to the first proposal, — desire to be superadded to the sanction of the Veto. I think I may safely ask your Lord ship whether this proposal does not confirm and illustrate all the remarks I have already made as to the desire which is at the bottom of all their plans, practically to engross and concentrate in Presbyteries the complete direction and controul of the nomination to the whole liv ings in Scotland ? Nothing is said in this most convenient sketch of a general enact ment, as to what is to take place when the Presbytery present. The Supplementary Note states — and correctly — that the principle IS contained in the general enactment of 1834 : And the regulations for carrying it into effect, the Deputation go on to say, they wish the legislature not to interfere with, but to leave to them. Under this fur ther power, any one who understands the subject must perceive, that the Church may practically ensure themselves still greater influence both in fixing the mode of nomination of ministers and in the direction of the individual settlements. One curious part of this proposal is, that the rejection by the pro posed laws is to operate against the patron's right in the same manner as any deliverance by the Presbytery pronouncing the Individual to be 139 unqualified. But Is it to be held in a question with the patron, that it is any disqualification in the individual chosen by him, that the peo ple reject him ; and therefore, that he should only have the same pe riod of the six months still remaining to him as if he had presented an unqualified person .'' Is it any fault on the part of the patron that the person has not pleased the people ? How can that be maintained, if the Presbytery do not try the individual and decide that he is unquali fied ? The only ground on which such a doctrine can be maintained is, that the patron ought to have consulted the people previously, or to have given them their choice. Is that then the theory of the Veto, to which at last we come, after all the views maintained by its original friends and supporters ? It would be difficult to maintain any such doctrine consistently with even that notion of the right of patronage which the Veto professes to leave. Then why, if the patron, after great care, much inquiry and pains in ascertaining the opinion of the parish, presents an individual, say in the fourth or fifth month, and that individual is vetoed, is it to be held that he should be in the same situation as if he had presented an unqualified person, seeing that the Presbytery have pronounced no judgment on the presentation, and have not moderated between the two parties ? I ask, why is the portion of the period of six months to be lost to the pa tron, which he may have conscientiously employed in looking out for a fit man .'' Have the Presbytery found the presentee not to be qualifi ed ? Not at all. They cannot try him. And yet the effect is to strike off the whole of that period from the time during which the exercise of the right is competent to the patron, exactly as if the presentee had been found on trial to be disqualified, and the Presbytery are to gain, by the rejection promoting the chance of the jus devolutum. Again, supposing the Church shall allow — (for the power to do so or not they desire by this sort of general provision, directed against pa trons alone, to retain in their own hands) — the Veto to be exercised against their nominee when they get it jure devoluto, — what is to be the result if their individual shall be vetoed ? Shall the right then revert to the patron ? Are the Presbytery to be allowed to go on ap pointing as often as they choose, though the people, if the Presbytery will not give them their own man, may reject in repeated Instances ? This would be a singular result, and yet this may be the case if the Church allow the Veto to apply to a presentation by them. In point of sound principle, the Church would act rightly, if they do not admit the Veto in such a case, and if they adhere to the original regulation on this point, from which they only departed when they found how the inference derived from it affected the argument In the ¦ Auchterarder case. But if they do not exclude the right to reject the man selected by themselves, clear it is that there may be intrusion against the will of the congregation just as much as in the case of any individual presented by a patron. But it is now impossible for a portion of the Church, after the ex position of the doctrine made by Mr. Candlish and the Committee, to reserve the power to exclude the Veto by the people on a nomination 140 made by the Presbytery. The right to reject now contended for is the same whoever nominates, and rests on grounds which put the people on a footing of perfect independence in a question with the Church : it would be lording it over the Lord's heritage to attempt this, — it would be against Scripture, for the people are to try the spirits. And if not excluded, it seems rather hard that, if the presentee of the Presbytery shall be rejected, the nomination shall not revert to the patron. In truth, a rejection ought to infer a forfeiture of the patron'^ jight, when there is no judgment of the Presbytery, (' moderating between ' the people and the patron,') unless upon the doctrine that the patron should give the people their choice, and that the selection of a qualified person is not all that is required from him. In giving an account of the resolution of the Assembly, and of the position thereby taken by the Church, there is in the ' Statement' of the Committee the same erroneous representation of the object and effect of that resolution which runs through part of Dr. Chalmers's speech. It is very singular that there should be such anxiety to keep back the plain facts — (1.) That the Veto act is in general terms adhered to and enforced : (2.) That it remains at present as enacted in 1834 : (3.) That even the amended regulations for carrying it into effect were re-enacted this year : And, (4.) That the Presbyteries are tliere- hy bound, and were, moreover, specially directed to act upon the same. Why is this so wrapt up in obscurity .'' Had Dr. Chalmers some fore bodings that the motion, as put into a practical shape, would not ' re- ' pair the blunder .f"' Is it now seen, that a plain avowal of what the Assembly has done, might alarm the public too much ? The Com mittee say in their ' Statement,' ' We supersede, therefore, the dis- ' cussion of the inquiry — rwhich is the right interpretation of the law ,? ' that which the civil court has now adopted, or that on which the ' Church proceeded .'' We do not now involve ourselves in a legal ' question in controversy with the civil court. We apply ourselves to ' the accomplishment of a practical object, through means of a negotia- ' tion with the State itself — the Legislature. We inform the State, ' that according to the principles of our constitution, we, in our spi- ' ritual department, cannot acquiesce in the terms on which the civil ' court has declared that we hold the privileges of our establishment. ' We ask the State, for the sake of the great ends for which an esta- ' blishment is instituted, to consider how the terms of it may be arrang- ' ed, so as to be in accordance with what we understand them to be, « and what we think they ought to be. Such, in substance, may be ' regarded as the real position which the Church has assumed in the ' recent decision of the General Assembly, and the subsequent appolnt- ' ment of a Committee ; such is the proper business given in charge to « the Committee.' Now, this is not the position taken by the Church. The resolution of the Assembly does not start from a general principle — throwing aside the contest as to the competency of the Veto act, as a thing gone by, and rendered immaterial by the Church taking a new ground. 141 The Church has now deliberately, and by this last Resolution of the Assembly, put itself in open disobedience to the law. The question of power is now of tenfold greater importance, and more urgent practical moment, because the Assembly continue to act, and have resolved solemnly to act, upon their declaration as to the law. Nay, the very question which is said to be superseded, is In truth now raised, and only now raised, in the shape in which It requires the decided Interposition of Government. The Church will not obey the law. To be sure they also ask for the alteration of it. But how does that, in the least degree, alter the great fact, that, in the mean time, they refuse to obey the law ? Can there be greater sophistry, then, than this singular account of what the Assembly did ? The Church, holding and proclaiming the deci sion of the House of Lords to be wrong — holding the whole matter of the Veto to be entirely within their cognizance — declaring that they will not take on trials, according to the duty imposed on them by sta tute, any presentee whom the people veto — resolved to enforce the Veto, without abiding the result of any negotiation with the Government or Parliament, and whether they succeed or not in obtaining any conces sions or authority from Parliament. Hence there cannot be a more er roneous representation than the Committee give of the proceeding of the Assembly. The true test is this, — Do they mean to perform the duty imposed by statute ? Do they take on trials a presentee, notwithstanding the Veto ? If not, they do act on the resolution that they were right from the first. They do disobey the law. They have declared their resolu tion to disobey it. They adhere to ' the blunder.' They resolve to abide by it. Nay, they make the blunder worse. The blunder was in passing the Veto act of themselves. And they publicly declare that they are resolved to enforce it, after it has been found by the judgment of the House of Lords to be illegal, and a violation of statutory duty. Dr. Chalmers, in the Tract to which I have adverted, in the course of his appeal to the people of Scotland, declares, that the Assembly have done nothing at all, — that they have taken no step in advance, — nay, that they have removed all cause of conflict in the meantime, — and thus puts the matter : — ' The General Assembly have done their ' uttermost to save the possibility of any conflict, while their general * attempts for an adjustment are going on. They have resolved tosus- ' pend every new case of a Veto which might occur till the next General ' Assembly.' Of this almost unaccountable passage, I shall only say, .that it confirms the impression that Dr. Chalmers did not see the turn given by others to the motion in favour of which he spoke. If this passage has any meaning, the result should be, that whenever, after a presentation was before the Presbytery, the people proposed to give in their dissents, the resolution of the Assembly ought to have sus pended the law of 1834, — have declared that the dissent was not to be allowed, — have directed the Presbyteries to stop at that stage, and to report that there was a disposition to dissent, but by what numbers, or by whom, the Presbytery did not know. This would have been one way of suspending the Veto. But this is not done. This would have 142 been, to a certain extent, concession by the Church. But the law of 1834 remains in force : Nay, Dr. Chalmers argued, that without the consent of Presbyteries, the Assembly could not, on ecclesiastical grounds, either suspend or repeal it : He objected to Dr. Cook's motion on that ground. The regulations for carrying it into effect were re-enacted by last Assembly, and sent down to Presbyteries : The Presbyteries must admit the Veto, and take the dissents. The rejection is then final : they must intimate the rejection to the patron, — if the patron and pre sentee acquiesce, they have nothing to report. It is only disputed if the presentee means to contest the legality of the Veto, — and then the matter is to be reported, instead of the Presbytery exercising the right of appointment themselves tanquam jure devoluto. This is what JL)r. Chalmers describes as suspending any new case of Veto which might occur ! Literally, what is to be reported is simply the filling up the parish by the Church, which might separate the ministry and the legal provision for the same, and which the Presbyteries are for this year pre vented doing. I venture to suspect that Dr. Chalmers has not bestowed much time on the series of Tracts, of which his is the last, when he wrote this sen tence. In them he would have found full explanations of the Watch word of ' the right of the Christian people,' and might then have seen that, consistently with the opinions contended for, it would have been strange if their advocates had yielded such a point, as not permitting the people to dissent in cases which might occur this year, and making the right in these future cases to depend on the contingency of the State sanctioning the Veto. The tracts which precede his justify what the Assembly did. They contain no such disguise of the matter as is attempted in the Statement of the Committee : — In them the leading members of the Committee state the facts m the plainest terms, and this very circumstance renders the explanation given in the Statement circulated in London the more extraordinary.* * This tract by Dr. Chalmers draws an analogy between the pro ceedings I have adverted to, and the course which a Committee of the Assembly have pursued In regard to a case which has occurred, as to the collections made at the doors of the new churches which have been erected Into parish churches. His statement is an instructive one. The heritors in the case referred to, contended that collections at the doors of parish churches, in part belong to the poor ; — that this Is an im portant and fixed principle in the law of Scotland, and one which ope rates most favourably, not only in preventing assessments, but also in promoting frugal administration of the funds for relief, and in cherish ing feelings in the people themselves in regard to parochial aid, who very generally contribute even out of their earnings to the collection at the church doors. In order to defray the debt incurred in building some of these new Churches, it was resolved, after these chapels had been declared to be 143 IV. It might not be an unimportant point for practical inquiry — What causes have contributed to bring about so very extraordinary a parish Churches for the districts attached to them, to appropriate the collections at the doors of these new Churches to pay off debt, or to pay the provisions for the ministers — introducing for parish churches in fact the Voluntary principle. The heritors in this case objected. They (Lord Panmure and others) had themselves subscribed great part of the Fund for building the new Church by liberal donations : — They offered to let aproportion of the collections be appropriated in the way intended, in which case they must have themselves made up the deficiency for the rellefof the poor. Even this was refused. The whole was claimed. The heritors may be wrong in point of law. But the Court at least found that they were right, and that the collections could not be so appropriated. On the point at issue I mean to say nothing — but this Tract, Intended, I presume, to convey an intelligible direction to all parts of the country of the course to be followed in similar cases, thus states the mode in which those directing these proceedings have evaded and nullified the law, and draws from this a proof of the disposition of the Church to obey the law ! ' Notwithstanding the hard names which are annexed to our pro- ' ceedings, I must utterly disclaim the Imputation of being either the ' abettor or the head of any rebellion because of them. To take an ' analogous instance. The Court of Session have recently found, that ' the heritors of every parish have a right to appropriate the ordinary ' Sabbath collections taken at the doors of our unendowed churches. ' Did we continue to hold these collections, and seize upon them for ' ourselves, and resist, perhaps with the help of a multitude upon our ' side, every attempt, on the part of those to whom they legally belong, ' to wrest them from our grasp ; this would be rebellion. But this we ' have not done ; and yet, in the only instance where I know that the ' right has been insisted on, the whole value of it has been nullified to ' the heritors. The collection has simply been discontinued ; and the « money which wont to be raised in that way, is raised in another, by ' domiciliary visits, or a weekly round among the houses of the contrl- ' butors. The plate is no longer set up, and the elders no longer stand ' at it. I have not heard of any order from the Civil Court on the ' Kirk-Session, to restore the plate, and go on with their accustomed ' rotation. But if, for the purpose of making good their own declara- ' tory as to the right of the heritors, such a mandate were to come ' from them, and that mandate to be withstood, I should expect hard ' names in consequence,^rebellion, and contumacy, and resistance to ' the law of the land. It were, no doubt, a most unseemly collision, ' arising from a grievous error somewhere, — whether of overstepping, ' on the one side, or of refractory opposition on the other ; and yet, ' unequal as the contest may seem, and immeasurable the disparity, ' between the Court of Session, the highest judicial body in the coun- ' try, and the Kirk-Session, the humblest ecclesiastical body In the ' Church, let but even-handed justice step in between them, and it 144 state of things in the Church of Scotland, and to give such a sudden start and licence to opinions which Sir Henry Moncreiff treated as mat ter of historical reflection, and regarded as so completely set at rest, that he left his advice and warning to the Church, that ' the revival of the ' controversy' would be detrimental to the interests of the Church ? Such an inquiry would probably suggest some important views as to the necessity of withstanding all indications of a desire for innovation which the popular assemblies of a Presbyterian Church may at periods of ex citement display, and of the practical wisdom of that system of guiding their deliberations on which such men as Dr. Robertson, Dr. Hill, and Dr. Cook, were so long enabled to act. ' would pronounce of the said error, that it lay not with the party who ' resisted the order, but with the party by whom it was given. ' I quote this instance all the more readily, because of the imme- ' diate cognizance which we of the Church Extension Committee have ' been led to fake qf it. And, without the consciousness of one rebel- ' llous feeling, we are doing all we can to arrest the execution of the ' law, in which, if we do not succeed, our next attempt will be, not to ' obey the law, but to extinguish it.' Then Dr. Chalmers explains that they Intend first to appeal, then to go to the Legislature to get the law altered, but in the mean time actually states that they are obeying the law, when the kirk-session at this new Church — that is, the ministers and elders — do not (and, as I understand from the Tract, with the sanction, if not by the direction of the Church Extension Committee) put out any plates at all at the church doors, at which the elders do not attend — give the peo ple no opportunity of giving their collections — and privately go round and get from the people what they choose to give, as the sub stitute for the contribution, which, when given at the church doors, if plates were put there and the elders attended in the performance of their proper legal obligations as parochial elders, would belong to the funds for the poor. Dr. Chalmers justly describes this as nullifying the law. He further holds it out as a proof of the disposition to obey the law on the part of the Church ! The instance is not a very happy one, but it is instructive as to the practical effect on the civil interests of parties, and on the economy of the social system, of the views as to the duty of the Church in relation to the law, on which the members of the former propose to act. The end in view seems to sanction any means of promoting that end. I presume, in a question respecting the performance of an obligation by A to B, Dr. Chalmers would not have quoted this as an instance of the disposition of A to obey and give effect to a civil decree. It is plain that if the Church thought fit, they might with equal propriety follow the same course as to the collections hitherto made at the doors of the regular parish Churches. It is really very sad to think that such directions should be given to the people of Scotland, in order to defeat the law on so important a matter as the collections for the poor at the church doors- 146 But I propose only to direct your Lordship's attention to a change in tjie composition of the Church Courts, which, I believe, has tended very materially to determine the spirit and character of the more recent proceedings of the Church, especially in the last and preceding Assem bly. The fact to which I allude, affords an instructive admonition as to the necessity of withstanding and resisting the principles as to the independent jurisdiction of the Church, and the plans of ecclesiastical usurpation which are now exhibited. For one great cause of the pre dominance of these principles at present may be found in the effects of a great constitutional change in the composition of the General Assembly itself, and of all the inferior courts, which was effected by the Assem bly itself, in the assumption and exercise of power which did not be long to it. I have now to call the attention of your Lordship to an act of the General Assembly, the incompetency of which startled every layman in Scotland who understood the subject, and the effects of which very soon told on the character and temper of the Church Courts in many parts of the country, and especially of the General Assembly, the com position of which it materially affected. For many years a great number of chapels had been built in many parts of Scotland in connexion with the Establishment. These chapels were in all material respects on the same footing with similar chapels in England — perhaps with some advantages. Your Lordship is also aware of the great efforts made during the last five or six years to in crease the number of similar chapels throughout Scotland, and of the applications which have been made to Parliament and to the present Government for endowments for the ministers of these additional churches, which have been built by subscriptions, for the districts where the Church accommodation was utterly insufficient for the people. This state of things — the want of Church accommodation, especially for the mass of the lower orders in great towns and populous districts — is the most fearful of all national calamities. I do not wish to enter into the question, (which does not belong to the subject of this Letter), as to the propriety of the course of conduct which the Government have followed on this subject. But there is one practical blunder in the decision which they formed, the consequences of which will be very serious to the country in other respects. By the constitution of all or most of the old chapels, the clergyman was chosen by the seat-holders or communicants, or some similar body. When the new churches were begun under the direction of the Committee of Assembly, and by means of the subscriptions which their great efforts called forth, the course for the Government to adopt, when application was made to them to endow the clergymen of these addi tional churches, was to act on the principle followed by Lord Liver pool's government, when the forty Parliamentary churches were, by the exertions of my excellent friend and former colleague. Sir William Rae, established in the Highlands, viz. in return for the advantages and en- 146 dowments to be given by the country, to stipulate that thepatronage of these churches should be vested in the Crown. Without reference to the paramount obligation on the Government and legislature to extend at all times the efficiency of the National Church, this was also, on the most manifest considerations of general policy, the expedient course for the Government to adopt. That the subscriptions would not have been given for this great Christian object, to the same, or nearly the same amount, if the Govern ment had acted on this principle, was a very politic argument for the enemies of patronage to hold out, but one, I believe, utterly without warrant in the feelings throughout the country as to the importance and necessity of additional Church accommodation for the poorer classes, in which these subscriptions originated. In the meantime the General Assembly of 1 834, by a sweeping enact ment, proceeded at once to declare, ' That all ministers already inducted ' and settled, or who shall hereafter be inducted and settled as ministers ' of chapels of ease, presently erected and established, or which shall be ' hereafter erected and established, in terms of the act anent Chapels of ' Ease of 1798, or prior thereto, by authority of the General Assembly, ' or by the Presbyteries of the bounds, are and shall be constituent ' members of the Presbyteries and Synods within whose bounds ' the said chapels are or shall be respectively situated, and eligible to ' sit in the General Assembly, and shall enjoy every privilege, as fully ' and freely, and with equal powers, with parish ministers of this ' Church; (!! ) hereby enjoining and requiring all Presbyteries, Synods, ' Church Courts, and judicatories within whose bounds the said chapels ' are or shall be situated, to receive and enrol the said ministers as ' members thereof, and put them in all respects on a footing of Pres- ' byterian equality with the parish ministers of this Church; giving, ' granting, and committing to the said ministers the like powers and ' authority and privileges now pertaining to ministers of this Church, ' within their respective bounds : And the General Assembly did, and ' hereby do, remit to the Presbyteries within whose bounds the said ' chapels now established are situated, to allot and assign to each of the ' said chapels a territorial district^ and to erect such districts into se- ' parate parishes quoad sacra, and to disjoin the same quoad sacra ' from the parishes whereof they at present form parts ; and also to take ' the necessary measures for selecting and ordaining, according to the ' rules of the Church, for each of the said districts so to be erected, a ' body of elders, who, with the said ministers respectively, may exercise ' sessional jurisdiction within the same.'' (!) Your Lordship is well aware of the provision made by Parliamentary enactment for the mode of establish ing additional parishes in Scotland, by a regular process before the Court of Teinds, (the Court of Session), in which all parties interested must be called, — heritors, &c. The con sent of a certain proportion of the heritors is required before so great a change can be made as the creation of a new parish implies. A new parish may thus be created by the regular form of proceeding which has 147 been provided for attaining that object. The minister of a parish .so erected will then become one of ' the parish ministers of this Church.' No doubt, in defence of this most unconstitutional and unexampled proceeding on the part of the General Assembly, it is said that these parishes are created only quoad sacra, not quoad om)iia, and that they are not in the eye of law proper parishes. That is the defence stated for the measure. But if the parishes are not, as it is n >t pretended that they are, regular and proper parishes in the eye of the law, — then what a palpable and extraordinary assumption of power to make all these ministers at once, by the act of the Assembly itself, members of Church Courts, and to give to their Sessions the ecclesiastical authority and power of discipline of Kirk-Sesslons, according to law, in these districts. The Church, by its own act, gives to the ministers the status and powers and rights of the regular parochial c/er^^of Scotland, — gives them voice and power of decision in the government of the Established Church, — enables these parties to decide on the qualifications of presentees, and in the settlement of the proper parochial clergy. The Church increases by them the component members of each Presbytery, and the total num bers of the General Assembly Itself, — and Introduces Into that Supreme Church Court Individuals who are not parochial clergymen. To your Lordship, I need not enlarge on the illegality of such a pro ceeding. The Established Church, whose Church Courts and Assem blies are composed of the clergy and of elders from the parishes created by law, (and the law knows of no other parishes), and who.se govern ment, by these courts. Is fixed by statute, chooses to establish a sort of extraordinary nondescript parishes, and makes, by Its own authority, the ministers of these, and elders from the same, constituted members of these Church Courts.. I may, in passing, observe how flimsy is the pretext, that be cause these parishes were erected quoad sacra, therefore there was no interference with civil rights or interests. The Presbyteries, as your Lordship Is aware, have civil jurisdiction in several important matters. They can decide on the propriety of repairing or rebuilding both churches and clergymen's houses, and give decree against the proprietors for the amount, — their decision being subject to the review of the Court of Session. Yet into Courts possessing and exercising such powers, the General Assembly took upon itself, by this strange proceeding, to intrude a description of persons, not parochial clergymen in any proper sense of the term, and who have no right whatever to sit in these Courts under the law and constitution of the country. By the decree of the Church, the proper clergyman of the whole parish is no longer the clergyman of the part erected into this new parish. The parties who live in it, (proprietors, it may be, in the legal parish,) cannot require, though members of the Establishment, the services of the only parish minister known to the law, to baptize, marry, attend funerals, catechise, or visit the sick and dying. He must have the leave of the new minister. They may continue to attend the 148 old parish Church, in which they may have right to a portion of the area for themselves and those living on their property : But the minis ter cannot attend them. He Is not their minister by the law and practice of the Church. He cannot enter that portion of the original parish for pastoral duty without the leave and knowledge of the new minister : And the people have no right to require his services under the law of the Church, although they have, by the law of the land, the same right to the regular performance and benefit of these services as before. There are many other interests which may be interfered with. As members of the Establishment, the parishioners are subjected to the discipline of the new minister, and of a Session of which he is the head, and withdrawn from the discipline and charge of the minister and kirk-session of the parish. Is this no Interference with the rights and interests of the subjects of the kingdom, who are entitled to the services, and to be under the pastoral care of the parochial clergyman, whom alone the law recognizes as the minister of the parish ? The government and discipline of the Established Church is declar ed by statute to be in Kirk-Sessions, Presbyteries, &c. The discipline of the Church is one of its most Important and valuable features. Yet this measure withdraws from the jurisdiction of the only Session known to law, the district which may be assigned to this new Church or Cha pel, and subjects the proprietors and Inhabitants of this district to ' the ' Sessional Jurisdiction within the same,' of this new Session. Now, I put to your Lordship, whether your experience furnishes you with another instance in modern times of similar usurpation of power, or with any such extraordinary subversion of all the limits by which the duties of the different Bodies in the State are marked out and defined. The original incumbent dies. The patron presents to the original benefice. That remains unaltered by law. The deed of presentation, and the right under which it is Issued, are of the same force as before. The Presbytery receives, admits, and inducts the presentee — to what ? Why, beyond a doubt, to the original benefice ; and yet a great portion of that parish has been erected by the Church into another parish quoad sacra. The Court of Teinds has power to disjoin, quoad sacra, a part of one parish, and to annex it to another. The legal character of the benefice is then to that extent altered. But the porrion so annexed is added quoad sacra to another proper parish. But this scheme of the Assembly has introduced another novelty the erection of entire parishes quoad sacra, (not permanently either, it may be), and then gives to the minister of such parish (an institution perfectly unknown in the law), the rights, power, and status of a parish minister. The very phraseology of the act of Assembly sufficiently marks the irregularity of the procedure. For a succession of clergymen at such chapels there is no provision. If the parties, upon the death of the first incumbent, are not disposed any longer to pay a successor, then the charge and parish fall, and the original parish minister comes forth again as the minister of the whole 149 original parish. Yet in the meantime, the anomalous personage is in vested with the rights and character and powers of a member of the Church Courts of an Established Church, the government of which is fixed by statute, and vested in the ministers and elders of the legal pa rishes of the kingdom and the Courts which they compose. In this, there is a practical proof of the consequences which follow from the notions of Independent Jurisdiction, which have been lately put forth by theChurch, and of the progressof ecclesiastical usurpation, when once commenced, on the part of an Establishment. The consequences of this measure were immediate and most marked. The clergymen of these chapels and additional Churches are often recommended to them by some of the leading men in the Church, — are eltcted by the seat-holders, — and naturally become the advocates of that mode of nomination, and the fierce antagonists of patronage. Their situations are in everyrespect greatly inferior in point of emolument and other advantages to the parochial clergy. Their status carries with it less weight in public estimation, — for they are not the legal parochial clergymen, even of the districts in which the Church has declared that they are to act quoad sacra as such. Their object is to be removed to parochial charges. Celebrity in the provincial Church Courts, is always one method by which to obtain a name in the Scotch Church, — and now more than ever Vehement harangues (in the style of those I have quoted) for the cause of the Church, the rights of the people, &c. &c,, afford excellent topics for the display of popular talent. The zealous churchman, it is thought, must be a good preacher. His name attracts attention. Some of the town corporations are likely to choose him as a conspicuous person, who may be expected to get the seats of the church well let. A patron, desirous to please, and knowing how little of either power or responsibility is left with him by the Veto, may save himself the trouble of inquiring, by taking one whom he hears so much talked of Or when the proper parish church falls vacant, the clergyman of this New Church hopes that, by the name he has acquired, it may appear to come to him as matter of right. Neither the patron nor the parish may much wish him. But he is a leading man in the Pres- bytery,-T-has acquired a degree of celebrity in the district, — not unlikely the seat-holders in the chapel may desire to exercise of new their right to elect, and to make a change — they earnestly recommend him, knowing that they are to please themselves if he gets the parish church ; or that if their next choice disappoints them, they can still go to the parochial church, which is probably just as near as the chapel. All these circumstances combine to make these new ministers most active members of Church Courts, and to induce them to take the line in which they are to acquire most notoriety. The sudden influx of these new ministers into theChurch Courts and the General Assembly, had a most marked effect in influencing and decid ing the tone and temper of all the future Church proceedings. I doubt not that the promoters of the measure confidently relied on this result. 150 In order to see how immediately such a measure told on the composi tion of the General Assembly, it is only necessary to recollect that each Presbytery returns a certain quota of ministers and elders to the Assem bly, varying with the total numbers of the Presbytery. Two or three Presbyteries have been divided of late years, which made a slight addi tion to the numbers of representatives to the Assembly ; but the rapid increase has arisen (with that unimportant exception) from the addition of Chapel Ministers, and those of the Parliamentary Churches, in a si milar way to Presbyteries. In 1832, the actual number of members returned to the General Assembly was, I understand, about 350 : If all the Presbyteries and Burghs had sent representatives, the number would have been 366. In 1838, the number returned was above 400. Inproportlon as the numberof additional chapels throughout thecountry shall be built in the progress of Church Extension, each of these chapels will be converted into this new sort of parish, — their ministers become members of Presbyteries, and so the members of a great many Presby teries which were formerly composed of few parishes, are suddenly swel led into very large Presbyteries, and the number of representatives will go on increasing very rapidly. The last General Assembly made a change calculated to increase the numbers still more, — for it removed, to a certain extent, the restriction on the total number of ministers or elders, which an act of Assembly in I7I2 had established, and allowed numerous Presbyteries to send, — one class, one additional clerical and one lay member, — another class, two additional members of each description. And the act further pointed to the division of some of the larger Pres byteries, each of which then will return separately representatives to the General Assembly. To Illustrate the working of those changes in the numbers of Presby teries and of the General Assembly, I may mei\tion, I believe on accu rate data, furnished from the best informed quarter, that the increase of the number of representatives sent to the General Assembly by the Pres byteries In the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr since 1834, amounted in 1839 to 14 members (9 ministers and 5 elders). In 1840 there will be at least 3 additional ministers and 2 elders, — or an addition of 19 members from one Synod. From the Glasgow Presbytery, the members sent to the General Assem bly in 1840, will be 10 ministers and 5 elders (Instead of 4 ministers and 2 elders six years ago), and from Edinburgh there will also be 10 minis ters and 5 elders, instead of (at the same period) 6 ministers and 3 elders, — so that, from these two Presbyteries, the addition will be 10 ministers and 5 elders, exactly double the former number. In 1839, Edinburgh had 8 ministers and 4 elders, and Glasgow 8 ministers and 4 elders, but the former Acts of Assembly did not admit of a larger representa tion than this. Dundee had formerly 3 ministers and 1 elder in .the Assembly, has now 5 ministers and 2 elders. 151 Perth had 4 ministers and 2 elders, has no'v 5 ministers and 2 elders ; next year will probably have 6 ministers and 3 elders. Aberdeen had formerly 4 ministers and 2 elders, has now 6 ministers and 3 elders ; will be entitled to have, in 1840, 8 ministers and 4 elders. These instances will shew how this system operates. I need not point out how this gradual increase, going on each year so long as any additional churches shall be built, in the members of the Assembly (previously too numerous for such a Body), will tend to ren der it less fit for the great purposes of solemn, grave, and dispassionate deliberation on those subjects which come before a religious Body, and will introduce into the Superior Church Court more of those elements of a popular Assembly, in proportion to the prevalence of which it will possess practically less of the character which a Church Court ought to exhibit. Thus, the usurpation of power in which this measure originated, both illustrates practically the extensive changes in the state of the Church and of society, which the claim for the independent jurisdiction of the Church may speedily produce ; and the effect again, of the changes so brought about, in strengthening the power of the Church, and encourag ing the spread of principles in their results most prejudicial to the in terests of the community. The manner in which this measure has been hurried on, exhibits fea tures more distressing as regards the character and dignity of the Esta blishment, and more prejudicial to the authority of the established clergy. So long as these extra places of worship remained merely chapels in the estimation of the Church, they were known to be dependent on con tingent and voluntary funds ; but then, on the other hand, the clergy men had not the rank, duties, status, powers, or functions, of the paro chial clergy. But from the anxiety, on the one hand, to erect as many new Churches as possible, — from the disappointment in not getting aid from Govern ment, many of the new Churches have been built when funds were not raised, and cannot be raised, sufficient at once for the expense of the Church, and the maintenance of the minister : Many of these are greatly in debt, (exactly as the chapels of the Dissenters were — a point which many of the clergy were so anxious to prove before the Church Com mission); and sermons have actually been advertised to be preached, and extra collections to be made at the doors of some of these new Churches for their support — for the support of what are declared to be part of the parochial establishment : While the ordinary collections at the Church doors, and the seat-rents, have been relied upon for maintaining them, as part of the regular funds for that purpose* * The subsistence and continuance of these new parishes quoad sacra, 152 Another and most extraordinary measure was adopted by the last General Assembly, which will affect most materially the character and composition of the Assembly, and may add to the numbers 'of Presby teries, and of the representatives of the Assembly. The General Assembly, by a sweeping enactment, resolved to admit all the ministers, sessions, and congregations of the Seceders belonging to the Associate Synod, at once into the Church, provided they signed the requisite formula, on the same footing as the Chapels of the Esta blishment, and directed the Presbyteries to allot districts to such Seced ing Chapels as parishes quoad, sacra, and to admit their ministers at once into the Church Courts, as parish ministers of the land. But the Church had previously yielded to certain stipulations which these parties practically required. The whole procedure is of a character quite unexampled, and so high was the Church ready to bid for this class of Seceders, that they have conceded to them the right, consistently with their recognized duty as depends, in truth, on the Voluntary principle. It is very well to have chapels in aid of the Establishment upon that footing : But it is a new feature in an Established Church to have the existence of parishes, and the parish ministers, dependent upon such support. Dr. Chalmers, in the Tract to which I have alluded, represents the collections at the Church doors to be essential for these new Churches. He says, the decision of the Court of Session is a death-blow to Church Extension, and to the union of the Seceders with the Church, — that it will bring Church Extension to a dead stand. I may safely assume, from this statement (taking It with due allowance for the strength of the expres sion employed), that in a great many cases these new Churches are built without adequate funds, even for the expense of the building, — in deed, the regulations of the General Assembly do not require the whole sum to be provided, and count upon the collections at the Church doors and the seat-rents. Hence, we have, according to Dr. Chalmers's own statement, a number of parishes, the ministers of which are introduced into Church courts, while the existence of such parishes is dependent upon the payment of debt: nay, the contraction of debt is the mode of creating the parish. Then, in proportion as the ' funds of the Church' (this is the ex pression employed in the regulations to describe the means for providing for debt and the support of the ministers,) are increased, both by seat- rents and collections, the surplus, after paying the interest of debt, or paying it off. Would increase the provision for the minister. So that these parish ministers are now more or less dependent in truth upon Voluntary aid, — though the individual has, it is true, a certain stipend secured to him by bond from private parties, — in itself a most unfortu nate provision for the maintenance of a parish minister, with legal du ties to perform, and a place in Church courts. Dr. Chalmers wished to dispense even with the necessity of a bond to the particular indivi dual ; but. to this extreme the Church has refused to go. 153 members of the Church which they were to join, to endeavour, as a mat ter of conscience and of religious duty, to effect any alteration in its constitution which they desire to accomplish. Any seceding minister, and congregation adhering to him, might pre viously have made an application, and been received into the Establish ment (as has been before done) as a chapel connected therewith, when the attainments of the minister were satisfactorily ascertained, and the principles of himself and of his congregation proved to be those in all respects of the Establishment. There was, therefore, no necessity for any enactment on the subject. In such cases, the duty of the Esta blishment was to receive those who might desire to join, but to concede nothing — to enter into no treaty — to make no compromise by which those, who could not without stipulations enter the Establishment, should thereby, and on their understanding of such compromise, be en abled to do so. This is the duty which an Establishment owes to the State. . For the first time, the Church of Scotland has entered into a capi tulation with a body of Dissenters, in regard to the terms stipulated by the latter, as the conditions on which they were willing to enter the Establishment. The terms of the Act of Assembly are as remarkable as the fact of such a compromise : ' Whereas proposals have been made by the Associate Synod for a * re-union with the Church of Scotland, and a considerable number of ' overtures have been sent at the same time to the General Assembly ' from the Synods and Presbyteries of the Church favourable to that ' object; and It has been ascertained, by a Committee of the General ' Assembly, that the course of study required for a long time past of ' Students in Divinity in connexion with said Synod is quite satisfac- ' tory, and that their Ministers and Elders do firmly adhere to the ' Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, ' and OTHER standards of our Church; and whereas the Members of ' the Associate Synod do heartily concur with us in holding the great ' principle of an Ecclesiastical Establishment, and the duty of acknow- ' lodging God in our national as well as our individual capacity; and ' we, on the other hand, do heartily concur with the Members of the ' Associate Synod in confessing the great obligations under which we ' lie to our forefathers in the year 1 638, and several years of that cen- ' tury immediately following, and the duty, in particular circumstances, ' of uniting together in public solemn engagement in defence of the ' Church, and its doctrine, discipline, and form of worship and govern- ' ment; and whereas our brethren of the Associate Synod have declared ' their willingness, in the event of a re-union, to submit to all the laws ' and judicatories of this Church, reserving only to themselves the ' right which the members of the Established Church enjoy of endea- ' vouring to correct in a. lawful manner what may appear to them ' to be faulty in its constitution and government : ' The General Assembly, with the consent of the Presbyteries of this ' Church, enact and ordain, that all the Ministers of the Associate 154 ' Synod, and their congregations, in Scotland, desirous of being adralt- ' ted into connection and full communion with the Church of Scotland, ' be received accordingly, and that the following rules be strictly obser- « ved by the Presbyteries of this Church relative to this subject.' The Presbyteries are to take measures for Establishing these Dissent ing chapels as churches, with parishes quoad sacra, and introdaeing their ministers and elders into the Church Courts. The following, are among the regulations contained in the Act of Assembly : — ' 2. On the receprion of a Minister and Congregation of the Associ- ' ate Synod into connection with a Presbytery of this Church, the Mana- ' gers of said Congregation, or the Kirk-Session and Deacons, if Mana- ' gers, shall forthwith take the steps necessary for procuring a constitu- ' tion for the newly admitted Church, and having a territorial district ' assigned thereto. ' 3. Every Minister of the Associate Synod, at his admission as a ' Member of Presbytery, and every ruling Elder of said Synod, before ' taking his seat as a member of Presbytery or Synod, or General As- ' sembly, shall subscribe the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the ' Formula of the Church of Scotland, and shall enjoy all the rights ' and privileges of Ordained Ministers and Elders of the Church of ' Scotland. ' 4. The integrity of the Kirk-Sessiv.ns and existing congregations ' of the Associate Synod admitted into the Church of Scotland, and the ' right of said Kirk- Sessions to grant sealing ordinances to the present ' members of their said congregations, though not residing within the ' bounds of the parish which may beallotted to them, shall be distinct- ' ly and practically recognised by the other Kirk-Sessions and the ' Presbyteries of this Church, — provided always that this provision ' shall in no respect ajiply to non-residents who are not, at the date of ' this Act, members of the existing congregations as aforesaid.' Another Regulation provides that the Church is to take no cogniz ance of the mode in which any of the incumbents of these Seceding chapels are now maintained aud provided for, and not to require any other or different provision from that on which, as ministers of Dissent ing congregations, they had been dependent. The risk is obvious that the congregations or subscribers of bonds, guaranteeing perhaps only a deficiency in seat-rents or collections, would not have acquiesced in any change, much less in any stricter and firmer hold on these precarious sources of payment to the ministers. The express declaration in the act of Assembly, as to the acts of the Church in 1638, and the years immediately following, must of course mean something different from what has been hitherto the understanding and opinions of the Church as to that period, — else there was hitherto no difference on that, which we know did form a great point of difference. I think, in the language and opinions of Mr. Cand lish and the other leading members of the Church Committee, which I 155 have quoted, we can now understand how it is that the Seceders have become satisfied with the views of those with whom they have united, — for the very acts of that period are declared now to form the exemplar to which the Church of Scotland ought to be moulded, and according to which the unworthy and defective settlement of 1688 ought to be reform ed and altered. If there is not practical meaning in this declaration, it was not worthy of an Establishment. The reference to the other standards of the Church is intended, I presume, to allude to the First and Second Book of Discipline, and any authorities which parties choose to hold to be standards of the Church. What is the object of the allusion to the Covenants of the period of 1638 and 1643.'' Is it In that way to allow the Seceders to hold that these form part of the Standards, in their understanding, of the Church of Scotland .'' The Body for whose satisfaction these declarations by the Church were required, in order to make the Establishment such as they desired, must have attached practical importance to them — must have understood that important points of difference were thereby removed — and that their views of these matters were so far adopted and sanction ed, as to have enabled them, retaining their opinions and views (for such, as will immediately be seen. Is their solemn declaration to the Church) to enter this now reformed Church. What these views are, I shall presently shew. Then, what is the meaning of admitting a reservation, if it Is only what all members of the Establishment possess, of a right to endeavour to correct what may appear to these new adherents of the Church of Scotland to be faulty in its constitution ? This is a singular concession for an Established Church to make by public declaration, as part of a capitulation for admission into the Church. Among the questions put to a minister before ordination, he is asked, ' Are you persuaded that the Presbyterian government and discipline ' of this Church are founded on the Word of God, and agreeable there- ' to ; and do you promise to submit to the said government and dlsci- » pline, and to concur with the same, and never to endeavour, directly or ' indirectly, the prejudice or subversion thereof, but to the utmost of your ' power in your station to maintain, .support, and defend the said dlsci- ' pline and Presbyterian government by Kirk-Sessions, Presbyteries, ' Provincial Synods, and General As.semblies, during all the days of « your life T The formula, — which must by statute be si:;ned, — goes even farther in the part which I have not previously quoted : — The first part of it, it will be remembered, refers expressly to the statute passed at the Re volution, as establishing the Confession of Faith of the Church — and then it proceeds : — • As likewise I do own the purity of worship presently authorised and ' practised in this Church ; and also the Presbyterian government and ' discipline now so happily established therein; which doctrine, worship, ' and Church government, I am persuaded, are founded upon the word ' of Gud, and agreeable thereto. And I promise that, through the grace 156 ' of God, I shall firmly and constantly adhere to the same ; and to the ' utmost of my power shall, in my station, assert, maintain, and defend ' the said doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church, ' by Kirk-Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General As- ' semblies ; and that I shall, in my practice, conform to the said wor- ' ship, and submit to the said discipline and government, and never ' endeavour, directly or indirectly, the prejudice or subversion of the ' same. And I promise that I shall follow no divisive courses from the ' present establishment of this Church ; renouncing all doctrines, tenets, ' and opinions whatsoever, contrary to, or inconsistent with, the said ' doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church.' Could these questions, then, not be answered, — could this formula not be signed conscientiously by the Seceders, without this solemn de claration and acknowledgment by the Establishment of the terms and reservations, under which it might be taken and signed by those who may intend, and are thus allowed, to endeavour to alter the constitution and government of the Church to which, in truth, only nominal adherence is required by this act of Assembly. This is an extraordinary fact in the history of any Established Church. How it is reconciled with the express declaration and enactment in the statute 1690, c. 22, already quoted, as to the subscription required from ' every minister and preacher within this Church admitted or continued ' for hereafter,' it is difficult to understand. This measure appears to illustrate so forcibly the change which is going on in the policy of the Church of Scotland, that I must introduce a further explanation as to the grounds on which this union has taken place. The Seceders, in their Communication to the General Assembly, unequivocally asserted their own opinions, and the concessions which they desired the Established Church to make to them. In a Letter to the Moderator of the General Assembly of 1835, they stated, ' It ' is with no pretensions to immaculate purity on our own part, nor, we ' trust, with a blind partiality for the policy of our ancestors, that we ' avow that our opinion of the validity of the original grounds of the ' Secession remains U7ichanged ; and, while we are most sensible, that, ' from the time of the division referred to, there have ever been many ' within the walls of the Establishment, whose zeal and piety have ' afforded indubitable evidence of the presence of the Spirit of God with ' the Church from which our forefathers seceded, still we believe that ' those grievances which compelled their separation were of serious ' magnitude, and have proved extensively injurious, in their long con- ' tinuance, to the interests of vital godliness, and the success of the ' Gospel within its pale. It is with no air of triumph, — it is with no ' indifference to the great evils attendant on division, — that we declare ' that we look back with reverence and gratitude to the faithful con- ' tendings of the founders of the Secession, and that we express our ' persuasion that their efforts to preserve the truth, were not a little ' countenanced of God, and, as followed up by the Imperfect endea- ' vours of those who have since rallied round the standard they lifted, 157 « have been of no inconsiderable advantage to the common cause of re- ' ligion in our native land.' They explained that to the principle of an Establishment they had never objected, and referred to the following well known declaration of the ministers who originally seceded, as proving both that they acknow ledged the principle, and also what the Establishment was which they regarded as the true exemplar of the Presbyterian Church. Their well known words were, — ' We appeal to the first free, faithful, and ' Reforming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,' i. e. the Assembly 1638, The Associate Synod then set forth the views with which they would enter an Establishment. ' As having avowed, throughout a century, ' our desire to see the Church of Scotland occupying again the ground ' which it held in the reforming period from 16.'-'8 to 1650, and our ' adherence to the Covenants, by which that reformation in Church and ' State was promoted and ratified, we should earnestly desire to aid in ' promoting a revival of that work.'' The purpose of extensive change in the constitution of the Church, and of regaining the power exercised by the Church at that period is not here disguised. All the covenants are here referred to as equally important. Indeed the one for abolishing Episcopacy in England is that to which the Seceders attach the greatest importance. After a de claration of their hostility to patronage, and that a more effectual mea sure than the Veto must in their opinion be devised, they then pro ceeded to explain their principal ground for proposing union with the Church, in the following significant passage as to ministerial liberty, as it is termed, or in other words, the rights of ministers of an Esta blishment, while adhering to the same, to prosecute any changes they •choose in its constitution, and to obey or not, acts of Assembly, so far as their conscience permits. ' Our principal .encouragement to treat ' for union, lies in our perception of the growing spirit of liberty ' in the judicatories of the Establishment ; being persuaded that the ' various articles of remonstrance, which afterwards became on the part ' of the Seceders grounds of separation, were not so much the causes ' of separation considered abstractly, as connected with the denial of ' their right to contend constitutionally and freely for a redress of their ' grievances. Having reason to believe that just freedom would now ' be granted, — a freedom not, of course, undefined, but regulated by ' the spirit and principles of Presbyterian Church government, we are ' willing, inasmuch as this would go far to put us in the po.tition which ' we understand the first Seceders to have claimed, to consider in the ' spirit of meekness, whether, consistently with our adherence to their ' i'estimony, we might henceforth prosecute our designs in immediate ' alliance with the numerous friends of the truth and of vital godliness, ' whom we delight to recognise as already enlisted under your banners." In the foregoing communication to the General Assembly, the Asso ciate Synod of Seceders very distinctly announce that they adhere to the views of the Original Seceders on the points of original difference. And it is necessary shortly to state one or two of these points, not 158 only as originally stated, but as explained by the Associate Synod about the time of this communication to the General Assembly : — For taken In connection with this declaration of the Assembly, they bear materially on the views at present promulgated by the Church, and the ultimate objects of reformation which are actuating the leaders of the present measures. The original Act, Testimony, and Declaration of the Seceders, (edit. 1736), declared that the sins and defection from the truth, on the part of the Church of Scotland and of the State, began immediate ly after the Revolution ; that the Church sinned in going back to 1592, and not adopting and standing by the Covenants * from 1638 to 1650: denounced as sinful defection from the truth, that the Act of Parliament rescinding these covenants was left unrepealed ; that Prelacy had not been condemned as against the Word of God ; that Patronage had not been condemned and uprooted as against the Word of God ; that the Church at the Revolution did not assert the ' divine right of Presbytery, and the indivisible power of the Church, ' which are two special branches of Christ's glorious headship in and ' over the same ; " nor has the obligation of our Covenants, National " and Solemn League, and their binding force upon posterity, ever been " expressly asserted by any particular act of Assembly since the Revo- " lution :" ' That the treaty of Union, which acknowledged the Eng lish hierarchy, was contrary to the covenant union with England in 1643, by which the work of Reformation ought to have been carried on, and which the Church and people of Scotland were still bound, by a solemn vow to God, binding on the nation, to prosecute and advance : That, in this respect, ' the foresaid union may justly be looked upon ' as contrary to and-condemned by the Word of God :' That the tolera tion of Episcopalians in Scotland, ' and all such tolerations, were con- ' trary to the Word of God.' The doctrine as to the Solemn League and Covenant is a very re markable one. It is made by them a point of religious faith ; and in its practical consequences, (for it is one of direct practical effect), would, if adopted, array the whole religious community of Scotland against the Church of England. The exact meaning and practical consequences of these tenets, I prefer taking from an address by the Associate Synod to their congregations so late as September 1834, which both shews in the most authoritative manner, that the views of the Act and Testimony are still retained, and because It Is drawn up in calm and measured language, and cannot be turned aside as the intemperate and exaggerated ex pressions of individuals. In that address the ministers of the Synod declare — ' Our objections to the Established Church are not con- ' fined to her administration. We cannot unreservedly approve of her ' constitution as it was established at the Revolution.' Some of these defects are then mentioned. It is said that ' the first Seceders in their ' Judicial Testimony and Declaration of Principles, specified several * I find In the works of the Seceders, the very language and opinions which are contained in the passages already quote! from Mr. Candlish. 159 ' important points with respect to which that settlement Involved a sin- ' ful departure from a previous settlement of religion in Scotland, which ' they distinctly held forth as exhibiting the model, in poird of Scrip- ' tural purity and order, of that reformed constitution to which they ' sought by their contendings to bring back the Church of their native ' land. This Synod occupy the same ground with the first Seceders. ' They are aware that the Established Church has it not in its power * to correct all the evils of the Revolution settlement which they feel ' themselves bound to point out ; but they cannot warrantably quit ' their position of Secession, until the Established Church shew a dis- * position to return to that reformed constitution.'' The address then goes on to say — ' The Revolution settlement came 'far short of embracing the former attainments of the Church andna- ' tion in religious reformation. In general its grand defect lay in wholly ' overlooking the civil and ecclesiastical reform attained to between 1638 ' and 1650, generally termed the period of the Second Reformation. ' The Scottish Parliament abolished Prelacy indeed, considered as con- ' trary to the inclinations of the generality of the people of Scotland, ' but not as contrary to the Word of God, and as abjured by our Cove- ' nants.'' They complain that the Act of Parliament rescinding the Solemn League and Covenant, had not itself been repealed. They complain that the national adoption of the Confession of Faith was the act of the State itself, and not by an acknowledgment of the intrinsic right of the Church. Then, in full explanation of the important doctrines involved in the tenet, that the League and Covenant being a Solemn oath taken by the nation to God, even a covenant with Him, is of perpetual obligation, binding both nations to the extirpation of prelacy, and the continued neglect of which the justice of God must punish, — they go on to say, — ' This Synod have always condemned that article in the treaty of ' union between England and Scotland, by which the Scottish na- ' tion gave its consent to the perpetuating of the hierarchy in England, ' as consistent with a previous treaty, sacredly ratified, which pro- ' vided for " the Reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England " and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, ac- " cording to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed " Churches," and for the complete abolition of prelacy.'* Then, after some other remarks as to the way in which the Scottish Church has gradually lost ' all proper sense of the evils of prelacy,' they con tinue, — ' They look on the refusal of the English Church to reform, ' and the obstinacy with which she continues to cling to flagrant ' abuses, as one great cause of the critical state Into which our Ecclesi- ' astical Establishments are brought.' Again, — ' As it is, the Synod * It is enough for the purpose of my explanation, that this is the interpretation put by the Synod on this treaty. I need not inquire with what view Vane introduced the general words which proved so great an obstacle to the accomplishment of the object which the Scotch had so much at heart. 160 ' must condemn the constitution of the English Establishment, as de- ' cidedly Erastian, in consequence of the power granted to the king as ' the temporal head of the Church, and supreme judge in all causes ' ecclesiastical. The civil places and power of Churchmen, and in par- ' ticular, the appointment of the bishops as a constituent portion of one • of the estates in Parliament, under the denomination of Lords Splrl- ' tual, we consider to be as detrimental to the interests of religion, as it ' is inconsistent with the nature of Chrisfs Kingdom, which is " not of " this world," The whole frame of the hierarchy is without the shadow ' of foundation in Scripture; a corruption of the primitive order instl- ' tuted by Christ in his church, which originated in human invention, ' and was carried to perfection under antichrist ; a government in which ' the discipline and laws of Christ's house, for maintaining truth and ' purity, are deprived of all force ; and which, therefore, may be abollsh- • ed without endangering the existence or marring the beauty and effi- ' clency of the English Establishment.' And in another passage they say, — ' Our reforming ancestors con- » sidered that our national covenants, having a permanent object, must ' be of perpetual obligation on all ranks in these lands to the latest ' posterity ; and many of them sealed their testimony for this sublime ' truth with their blood. The same doctrine is held by this Synod ; ' and so long as this doctrine was held by Seceders in general, they ' never once dreamed of waging war against the principle of Establish- ' ments. But how much soever the ministers of the present Establish^ ' ment disagree with the advocates of the " Voluntary" system in other ' respects, the most of them seem to go hand in hand with them, in ' treating with neglect, if not with contempt, these national deeds. ' We cannot avoid declaring, that they have in so far abandoned one ' of their principal strongholds as a national Church. They hold their ' temporal emoluments by a national grant made to them at the time ' of the reformation ; but can they with a geod grace plead the per- ' manent obligation of the national faith pledged in that grant, so long ' as they overlook or deny the permanent obligation of our national en- ' gagements in support of the reformation itself.'' If the nation has ' proved unfaithful in the one case, and they have kept silence without ' testifying against breach of covenant as a great national sin, can they ' reasonably expect that it will prove faithful in the other ? By aban- ' doning the reformation as a covenanted work, and dropping from her ' profession the continual obligation of these national deeds, the present ' Church of Scotland has done more to pave the way for her own ruin, ' than all that has been done, or could have been done, by " Voluntary " Associations," had she pursued a different course. The national ' Covenant, as renewed in 1638, and the Solemn League and Covenant, ' though condemned by the law of the State, are approved by laws of ' the Church, which have never been set aside by any ecclesiastical ' authority ; but these have long been a dead letter ; and a party who ' refuses to renew a lawful contract which he has failed to perform, Is ' viewed, in the sight both of God and man, as disowning it, and setting ' its obligation at nought.' 161 These are the opinions of the Synod of this portion of the Secession in September 1834. As might be expected, the Synod further declare, that the resolution adopting the Veto law was ' very discouraging, and that they must re- ' assert the ancient doctrine of the Scottish Church, that the order of ' election, according to the Word of God, " cannot stand with patron- " ages and presentations to benefices," which, as the barbarous names ' themselves denote, " flowed from the pope and the corruptions of the " canon law only." ' Another important tenet most keenly maintained by the Original Seceders, and to which at present they attach so much importance, that it is specially noticed in the Letter to the Moderator of the General As sembly, in a passage I have already quoted, was the doctrine of Minis terial Liberty, — that is, that individual ministers might disobey acts of Assembly, and act as a member of Presbytery in his ministerial cha racter inconsistent with them, when against his conscience. The prin ciple, indeed, formed the cause of the Secession, — for if this liberty had been granted to Erskine, he had no intention of leaving the Church. That the declaration in the act of Assembly, as to the right reserved to the Seceders, is really intended to concede to these a license, which, without it, they could not, consistently with the act of adherence, have possessed, cannot be doubted, — and unless they have departed, since 1834, greatly from their original opinions, it seems plain to any one ac quainted with the results of such coalitions and concessions in similar instances, that this measure will both be productive of great divisions in the Church Courts, and destructive of unity of doctrine. Adhering tathe principle of establishment, the Synod, in the address referred to, declared they were ready to return to the Church according to the appeal of the first Seceders to ' the first free, faithful, and re- ' forming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,' — as soon as ' such an Assembly has taken up the appeal, and answered it in the ' way of removing the grounds of our secession. Meanwhile a sense ' of the obligations we lie from the Word of God, and the solemn obli- ' gations we have contracted, requires us to remain in a state of separa ' tion.' In a note they explain why the General Assembly of 1834 could not be called a free, faithful, and reforming Assembly, and refers to the explanations of the Original Seceders. In addressing their con gregations, their cause is described as that of ' covenanted uniformity,' in special reference to the obligations and objects of the covenant, in or der to bring about uniformity to Presbytery throughout the empire. Your Lordship will easily understand then, the meaning and objects of the declarations by the Assembly in 1839, which have proved so satisfactory as to enable the Seceders to join, in order to prosecute with in the Church the objects, which they hold to be matter of religious faith and covenanted duty. In the introduction of this active and persevering class into theChurch, it is impossible not to see the sure causes both of further pretensions to ecclesiastical power, and of measures most detrimental to the princi ples of toleration, arid the religious peace of the kingdom. Every effort will be made to correct the ' sinful' departure from the system esta- 162 blished between 1638 and 1650, and bring about the uniformity which is marred by the unscriptural hierarchy of England still maintained against the Word of God, &c. in violation of sacred treaties. No doubt the attempt may be idle, with reference to the prospects of ultimate success. But such views so far countenanced, I fear, by this declaration of the Assembly, and at all events urgently inculcated now by a recognised portion of the Church of Scotland, will tend to give greater method and authority to many Bodies of Dissenters in England, and may create distrust between the Establishments when they ought to be most united. But without dwelling on these points, — however important for the consideration of the Government and the Legislature, — It is more within the immediate object of this part of my Letter to request the attention of your Lordship to the three regulations which I have quoted from this act of Assembly. These Seceding clergymen are at once admitted, on their application, and in the forms pointed out, to be members of Church Courts. A district is to be assigned to them, and the pastoral charge of the people living in that district is thenceforth under the charge of these indivi duals, as the only parish minister whom the Church recognizes as in the cure of souls in that district, and by whom discipline may be exercised. There are many who will feel this to be no inconsiderable encroachment on their rights as subjects. But the proceeding is still more extraordinary. The discipline and authority and jurisdiction and pastoral superintendence of the minis ter and session respectively of their congregations, is recognised over in dividuals who may reside in other parishes — not only In other parishes quoad sacra, but may reside in other legal parishes than that in which this church and minister are placed. That is to say, — one of these chapels is in the parish of St. Cuthbert's, — a district is allotted to it which may em brace part of it or parts of other parishes — but still a distinct district: Individuals have belonged to that congregation who lived in other pa rishes, which are not included in that district ; — say in the parish of Cra- mond, or Corstorphlne, or Lelth. These individuals, of course, may resort to their old church. The Church would not have prevented them. But the act of Assembly goes much further. The integrity of the kirk- session and congregation of the Seceding Chapel is to be recognised in re gard to individuals thus living in different parishes ; and other Kirk-ses sions are to admit the authority and discipline of these new Sessions, out of the bounds of the district alloted to them by the Church over individ uals, who, declaring that they belong to the Establishment, are yet to be in a situation and to have privileges which are Incompetent and unconsti tutional as to all the proper members of the Establishment, and are to be under the ecclesiastical discipline, not of the established minister and session of the district in which they live, (no matter how the district is constituted), but of a minister and session of a different district, which is thus admitted by the Established Church, to act, and to have charge and discipline, within the bounds of another parish. The established minister of the legal parish of Cramond finds that part of his parish 163 ioners are under the pastoral care of a minister and the discipline of a session wholly in a different parish. Yet these congregations, sessions, and ministers, are said to form parish churches in the Church of Scot land, and the ministers and sessions to be part of the government of the Church as by law established. The very first element in the scheme of Presbytery, is in truth to be found in the territorial division of the country into parishes ; the ex clusive charge of which, so far as the members of the Church is con cerned, and indeed all residents also to certain most important effects, is under the minister and session of the bounds — no other minister or session having any concern therein whatever, and the only interference being by the superior court, the Presbytery, — composed of a certain number of these ministers with an elder from each session. Several ministers of these Seceding congregations have been already admitted into the Church Courts ; and it is presumed, from the nature of the preliminary treaty, that all the congregations will be admitted. Not less than forty ministers, and as many elders, may thus be added to Presbyteries. Hence a further and considerable increase may take place in the members of Presbyteries and of representatives to the As sembly. But a great practical effect must also result from the infusion of the opinions and principles of those who have hitherto been educated, and have maintained themselves in the position of Seceders : — not opposed certainly to the principle of an Establishment, but conscientiously hold ing that the Constitution and government of the Church of Scotland re quire to be changed in vitaPpolnts, in which it was so faulty that they could not in point of religious faith join it. For their satisfaction, and as a concession to them, it was necessary not only to make the declara tions as to the more exalted Presbytery of 1638 and of the years which immediately followed it, which I have already quoted, but also to grant the license to agitate and struggle for changes in the constitution and government to which they are nominally to adhere, and which, without that public recognition of such license, according to the sense in which the Seceders may choose to understand it, they could not have con scientiously acknowledged. These individuals are distinguished for the uncompromising and ho nourable perseverance with which they have maintained the doctrines which they hold as to the constitution of the Church of Scotland. Their views they have never disguised. They think, I presume, that great steps have been taken by the Church to remedy some of its abuses, but still they enter the Church only under the declaration, (for that is the substance and meaning of it), that her constitution and government are most faulty, and that their intention to endeavour to effect the changes which they deem to be material, must be admitted and understood, by public acknowledgment by the Church, not to be narrowed or excluded by signing its formula, or by their act of adhesion. It is in vain to say that all members of the Church have a right to 164 do so. The Declaration, if it Imported only that all members of the Church may contend for the improvement of its constitution, would have been no satisfaction to the Associate Synod. It must extend to mat ters of greater importance, in which the constitution must, as matter of religious opinion, be altered. That is a right which, as members of the Establishment, parties have not. As subjects they have. But if they .think the constitution of a Church, as .settled by law, is so faulty that they must struggle to effect a change on points which they in con science deem material and sinful, they are bound to leave the Es tablishment, whatever efforts for its reformation they may make as subjects. The Seceders felt this deeply and conscientiously. They required the reservation to enable them to sign the formula, and it has been made. I doubt not that the promoters of this measure calculate on a great practical effect and influence on the proceedings of Church Courts, by the introduction of Seceders of the Associate Synod. And the indivi dual who can doubt of the effects, which the measure will have, must be very imperfectly acquainted with Scotland. In the year 1833, another measure was carried through, which was intended to pave the way for the introduction of the ministers of Chapels of Ease into the Assembly, and was also a very remarkable In stance of the systematic disregard of all the limits of civil and eccle siastical jurisdictions which has been exhibited of late years in the pro ceedings of the Church of Scotland. The 5th Geo. IV. c, 90, which established forty new Churches in the Highlands of Scotland, was passed upon the principle, that, as the en dowments which the Government could give to each would be so very small, it was not expedient or wise that those appointed to these Churches should be parochial clergymen, or possess the status of such. With a view to secure that object, the act which directs the Presbytery to allot to them certain districts, declares, that the ministers to be appointed to the Churches are to perform all the duties of a minister of the Church of Scotland, ' save and except the right and duty of Church discipline; and again, in another section, it is provided that all questions are to be decided according to the law of Scotland respecting parochial clergy, ' so far as may be consistent with the provisions of this act, and regard ' being always had to the consideration that the district set apart for the ' duties of such minister is not disjoined from the parish or parishes to ' which it belongs, or erected into a separate parish, and that the elders ' officiating at such place of worship do not, along with such ministers, ' form any separate and distinct kirk-session, and cannot derive any ' authority as such from the provisions of this act, but are merely mera- ' bers of the klrk-sesslon or sessions of the parish or parishes in which ' the district has been set apart, and have no authority or jurisdiction ' except such as by law belongs to them as members of the same.' Notwithstanding this most express Parliamentary condition on the 165 establishment of these Churches, the endowments of which were be stowed by the public, the General Assembly, in 1833, passed a sweep ing declaration, in the following terms : — ' The General Assembly of ' the Church of Scotland did, and hereby do enact and declare. That ' the whole districts in Scotland now, or to be hereafter provided with ' places of worship and ministers, in term of the Acts 4tli Geo. IV. c. ' 79, and 5th Geo. IV. c. 90, shall be, and are hereby, from and after ' this date, erected into separate parishes quoad ,9acra,and to that effect, ' are hereby declared to be disjoined and separated from the parishes of ' which they at present constitute a part. And the General Assembly ' further enact and declare, that all ministers already inducted or settled ' as ministers within the said districts, or who shall hereafter be induct- ' ed and settled in the same, shall be, and are hereby authorised to ex- ' ercise and enjoy, within their respective districts, the whole powers and ' privileges now competent to parish ministers of this Church, and that ' as fully and freely in every respect, and without molestation or Inter- ' ference, as if their respective districts had been ordinary parishes,'' (11) ' and they had been regularly inducted as ministers thereof Moreover, ' the General Assembly hereby declares, that the said ministers are and ' shall he co?istituent members of all Presbytei'ies, Synods, Church ' Courts, and Judicatories whatsoever, and shall enjoy every privilege ' as fully and freely, and with equal powers, as parish ministers of ' this Church ; hereby enjoining and requiring all Presbyteries, Synods, ' Church Courts, andJudicatorles, within whose bounds the said Churches ' are, or shall be situated, to receive and enrol the said ministers as ' members thereof, and put them in all respects on a footing of Presby- ' terlan equality with the parish ministers of this Church, giving, grant- ' ing, and committing to the said ministers, the like powers and autho- ' rity and privileges now pertaining by law to parochial ministers of this ' Church, within their respective bounds.' What has been the result ? Some of these clergymen then maintain ed that they were entitled, under the Act of Assembly, to enter the Scheme for a Widows' Fund, which it is Imperative on all parochial ministers to enter. The Court of Session had no difficulty, however, in holding, that they could derive no such right from the Act of Assembly. Other questions have also occurred, both as to these ministers, and the ministers of Chapels, which point out forcibly the very anomalous consequences of the acts of the Church In making them members of Church Courts, and giving them parishes, — and I doubt not that fur ther and more embarrassing questions will still arise. TheVeto act applied to and included all these Parliamentary Churches. Now, the heritors had only a few years before given the ground for the Churches and clergymen's glebes and gardens, and a variety of accommo dations, which the Government required, before they undertook to build the church and manse, and to give a stipend to the clergyman. In al lotting and giving up ground for these purposes, the proprietors in the Highlands certainly never contemplated that there was to be such a great and objectionable change Introduced as to the appointment of the minis- 166 ters of these Chapels, — intended for remote Highland districts, in the neighbourhood often of the residences of one or two proprietors, — which they believed were to be on the footing on which the act of Parliament placed them, — for which many of them made very liberal allotments of land in addition to the Government stipend, — but in regard to which, certainly, they do not think that the peace and quiet of their district Is to be at all promoted by the strife and dissensions which the Veto will introduce, or their interests in the selection of the clergyman as well consulted, as under the system, in the contemplation of which they had given the necessary ground. The position of parish ministers into which, contrary to the pro visions of the statute giving the endowments, the Church has raised these Parliamentary clergymen, has also in many respects operated by no means favourably on their situation in the Church. V. I have now to request the attention of your Lordship to some of the considerations which affect the question of the propriety or expedi ency of giving any countenance to the proposal of an Act of Parliament, whether to establish the Veto, or to give the Church general powers to regulate the appointment of ministers. Many are in the habit of looking to the question of the Veto only with reference to the number of cases of rejection which have occurred. There cannot be a greater mistake than to look to that fact as In any degree the measure of its operation. Nay, cases, in which the dissent is extensively stated, though short of the majority which is to reject, appear to me to illustrate in a remarkable degree many of the evils at tending the system. Neither is it in the fact that individuals, named by the patron, may be rejected, that the most important consequences of the measure are to be found. To look to that fact, taken by itself, and in reference merely to the rights of the patron and presentee, is a very narrow view of the measure in question. I propose to request the attention of your Lordship to more important considerations. In the_^/'s^ instance, I have to request your attention to two very In- portant objections, which may be stated separately, as being of an eccle siastical nature, but involving practical consequences of the deepest mo ment. 1. I advert first, to the grave and serious objection, that the Veto is utterly inconsistent with the proper authority and duty of the Church Courts in our Presbyterian Church, and subversive of the first princi ples on which the right government of any Church can be founded, with a view to the interests of religion, and the good of the hearers of the Church. This is an important objection for the consideration of the Legisla ture, when required to alter the constitution of the Church, and for the 167 Government, when asked to sanction such alteration. I do not now al lude to the right of patronage as confirnied by statute. But the State has given to or acknowledged in the Church Courts — In Presbyteries — the power and duty of collation. In establishing Presbytery, the State adopted, as one great and important characteristic of that form of Church government, that the Presbyteries should decide on all questions as to the qualifications and fitness of the persons nominated to a cure of souls. Who are to have the right to nominate or present, whether patrons or people, is one point. But that being decided, — (and the plan of the Veto leaves to patrons the right to nominate and present untouched,) — the principle of the constitution of Presbytery as established by law, is, that all matters respecting the religious interests of the parish, con nected with the settlement of the person so nominated, and all questions as to his qualifications, shall be decided by the Church Courts, as a part of the government of the Church which the State chose to establish, and to recognize in the Church. No matter who selects — no matter who is to present — the Church is to decide on the objections of all other parties to that selection. The statutes have made that an inherent part of the duty and power of the Church. To alter the Presbyterian form of Church government on so important a point, is no light matter. I apprehend an immense proportion of the members of the Church of Scotland would hold, that in such alteration the Established Church will receive a most fatal shock. They would look on such an interfer ence on the part of the State as most alarming as a precedent, threaten ing to destroy the true independence of the Church, and the solidity of its foundation as the Established Church, — and greatly endangering its influence, by destroying, in the estimation of the greater part of the country, its usefulness and most valuable characteristics as an Establish ment. I wish I could induce your Lordship and others to peruse, upon this important part of the subject, the report of a speech in the Synod of Aberdeen, by Dr. Mearns, 9th April 1834 ; * than whom, I presume, it will be admitted the Church of Scotland has not a more profound theologian — a more learned ecclesiastic — or an abler and more accomplished member. It is no light matter to change the constitution of an Esta blished Church, on so important and fundamental a point. Who can foretell what precedent such interference may afford in the present age for further changes by the legislature .'' Who shall say to what extent such a change will weaken the attachment to Presbytery, espe cially if the practical result of depriving the Presbyteries of one of their most important and useful and sacred functions, is to diminish, in the opinion of many, the peculiar value of that form of Church govern ment .'' Dr. Muir emphatically said, in resisting Dr. Chalmers's recent motion, ' By introducing " the will of the people" as the paramount * Published by Blackwood, Edinburgh. 168 ' test of the presentee's fitness, my friend's motion, however eloquently ' illustrated, overlooks and altogether neglects the sacred power of judg- ' ing and moderating in the whole matter, with which Christ, the ' Supreme Head, has invested his Church. Indeed, the Veto act, ' which this motion is meant to revive, was a total extinguisher of the ' spiritual power of the Church, as, assembled in Presbytery, the repre- ' sentatives of the people. The Veto act did not provide for the Pres- ' bytery judging and moderating in the matter of the presentee's quali- ' fication at all. The Veto act raised the will of the people Into the ' supreme place, and so laid prostrate that authority with which, for the ' ruling in his own house, Christ Jesus has clothed his Church. As- ' suredly, an expression of the will of the people ought to be gained, ' and ought to be duly weighed and considered. But an expression of ' the will of the people, which shall arrest the exercise of judicial power ' In the Church, Is what, in my opinion, is opposed to the principle of ' Christ's government, and is the subject, therefore, in this case, of just ' complaint.' These opinions are entertained and felt most strongly by a great pro portion of the ministers of the Church. They are entertained as strongly by a great proportion of the laity — I have no doubt by the great mass of the laity belonging to the Establishment. They believe that the plan of the Veto will destroy more than half the value of the Established Church of Scotland, and impair its constitution in some of the very points in which its excellency has consisted. Dr. Chalmers is well aware of the force and weight of this ob jection. His original motion In 1833, as I have already shewn, ad mitted it to be insuperable and paramount, but attempted (very imper fectly and unsuccessfully) to reconcile the sort of power of rejection then contemplated, with the duty necessarily inherent in the Church Courts, of judging of the fitness of presentees. In publishing his speech in support of his recent motion, he seems, from a note which [he has added, to have been anxious to endeavour to find some reply to this ob jection of Dr. Muir, so as to remove the distrust of the whole scheme in his own mind, which breaks out, I think, in 1 839 more strongly than it appeared in 1833. And in this attempt to obviate the objection of Dr. Muir he is led to acknowledge the most fundamental objections in principle to the Veto scheme. Accordingly he adds a note to his speech, in the following most re markable terms ; — ' It is an entire misconception that the Church has ' given up her power to the people by the Veto law. By that law the ' presentation may be said to be shared between two parties, the patron ' and the people, — signed by the one, and virtually countersigned by ' the other. The Presbytery still retains the same power of check ' and control over the presentation in this form, which we contend that ' it ever had over the simple nomination of the patron. We are not the ' registrars either of the patron or of the people. We are judges of the ' qualifications and of the specialfitness as much still as ever; and, moder- ' ating in the call between the two parties' (Indeed! — why, there is to 169 be no decision by the Presbytery if the parties differ : — what is meant, then, by the Presbytery moderating between the patron and people, 1 do not know) ' as heretofore, we can lay our interdict both on the un- ' worthy client of the patron, and on the unworthy favourite of the mul- ' titude. If this were thoroughly understood, it would reconcile, I am ' persuaded, many to the Veto law who are now opposed to it; and a still ' greater approximation would take place betwixt us, ii instead of acqui- ' escing in a simple Veto,' (what is the object of his own motion, and of the Committee appointed by the Assembly.?) ' the Church were first to ' legislate against any unworthy traffickings between the candidate and ' the people, even as it legislated against unworthy traffickings between ' the candidate and the patron, when it passed the Simony act. Fur- • ther,' (even greater restrictions on the Veto!) ' if all abuses cannot be ' provided against by law, ought not the defenders of the Veto act to ' consent, that, while the non-intrusion principle is in every case defer- ' red to by that act being^r-sf put into operation — yet, that even it is ' liable to be set aside, if it can be made manifest that in any instance, ' the voice given forth by the majority has not been the honest expres- ' sion of their mind and conscience, because not grounded on religious ' considerations ? While I have the utmost respect for the collective will ' of a simple, serious congregation, provided it has been genuinely given ' forth, and on the principles of the declaration required of them — yet / ' can imagine the scandalous scenes of a political election to have disgraced ' the parish, during the vacancy — I can even imagine individuals to ' have given proof , that they vetoed the nominee of the patron because ' they wished for another;* and so as to have falsified the declaration ' which the law might Impose upon them — In which cases, either the ' WHOLE PARISH ought TO BE DiSFRANCHisEDybr that lime, or the ' VETOES OF THE INDIVIDUALS SO FOUND AGAINST should hc StrUck off 'from the reckoning.'! ! !f What a condemnation in principle, of the Veto measure, is contained in these admissions ! though It Is true that. In the remainder of the note, Dr. Chalmers says it has acted smoothly. How much, in the opinion of its author, remains to be added to it, which it negatives and excludes at present, but which is here admitted to be required in prin ciple, and necessary in practice. How much restriction to be Imposed on the power of the people beyond the Veto law of 1834, — aye, and inconsistent with the principle of It ! What limitations then ought not the non-intrusion principle, (Interpreted as that is, viz., a power to reject) to receive before it is acted upon — before Parliament can be asked to give its assent to the Veto act, or to commit to the Church the un limited power of giving effect to the will of the people ? Why, Dr. Chalmers contemplates the case of disfranchising a whole * In these suppositions it cannot be doubted that Dr. Chalmers had in view well known cases, which had actually exhibited and illustrated all these evils. I shall mention some of these cases immediately. -|" Speech, p. 34. 170 parish, even after they have exercised their right — not certainly a plan likely to produce much harmony, or peace, or contentment in the parish : but proving the extent to which the authority and jurisdiction of the Presbytery over the exercise of the people's decision, ought to be up held, and the length to which in practice he knows that such interposi tion might be required. He also thinks that there should be reserved the right of full inquiry into the motives and reasons of the individuals exercising the right— ^whether grounded on religious considerations or not — not very consistent surely with the notion of a right, which is to be protected against all investigation by the Church. The Church has not yet imposed or sanctioned these restrictions. Which of the supporters of the Veto, which of the Committee, concur with Dr. Chalmers as to their propriety or necessity ? A great propor tion of them advocate the Veto, with the view to gain the abolition of patronage, and the remainder strenuously adhere to it as, in its present absolute form, the check on patronage which, at the least, they de manded. And in the ' Statement' or circular of the Committee of the Assembly, now urging their plans on government, not a trace is to be found of any such acknowledgment of the necessity of these most serious and effective limitations on the power of the people to reject. Further, the six years which have elapsed since 1833, seem to have im pressed on the mind of Dr. Chalmers (and the change in the conviction of the author of the measure, as to its safety, is most material) the necessity of limitations, far beyond what, in 1 833, in first proposing the measure, he then allowed to be necessary. For (notwithstanding the terms of the concluding part of the motion of 1833, which tried to re concile it with the powers of Presbytery, and might have enabled the Church to exercise its full authority) Dr. Chalmers individually then thought that the Church should not have any authority whatever. He then said,* — ' And here the question at once occurs, whether shall the ' objection taken to the presentee by the majority of the people, be sub- ' mitted for review to the Presbytery, as by the acts 1649 and 1690, ' or' (admitting thus, the Veto to be a great change) ' shall it be held ' conclusive, so as, without judgment by us, to set aside the presenta- ' tion.? My preference is for the latter.^ And he then states his rea sons for that preference, though his motion, in deference, I presume, to the opinions of others, did not go that length. The admissions I have now alluded to, are deserving of most serious consideration, when the measure to which they apply is now pressed on the Government and the Legislature, as a fundamental law of the Church, as a part of the great ' non-intrusion principle' which she is entitled to require the State to acknowledge. But I must not be further withdrawn, at present, from noticing the way in which Dr. Chalmers has attempted to obviate the objection of Dr. Muir. He says that the right of presentation under the Veto law, may be said to be shared between the patron and the people. Report of Debate 1833. Speech of Dr. Chalmers, App. p. 13. 171 What an admission this as to the competency and legality of the Veto act ! What a satisfaction to find this acknowledgment from Dr. Chal mers, when the whole argument in the Auchterarder Case resolved (in every branch of it) into a stout denial that the reference to the will of the people gave the latter any participation in the right of nomination or presentation. If this admission by Dr. Chalmers had been made in the first pleading in the Auchterarder Case, there would, in the mind of every man, have been an end of the whole question at once. But passing over this, — a consistent admission by Dr. Chalmers, who, from the first, thought the Veto Incompetent, — let us see whether the above view removes in the slightest degree Dr. Mulr's objection. (1.) It does not state the question correctly — for the Veto act does not in truth bestow selection on the people ; and unless selection, in one form or other, is bestowed on the people, the presentee is necessarily submitted by the Church to the judgment of the people. One party alone selects. The concurrence of a majority of the people is not re quired in the first instance to the patron's selection. In that event, the Presbytery would know nothing of the presentee until he had been named by one, and countersigned by the other, of the patrons. Dr. Chalmers, in so stating the matter, puts it as if concurrence is required. This is the sum and substance of the antithesis in the sentence above quoted. But under the Veto act, the people may have petitioned for the individual, as in the case of Lethendy, — they may have thus coun tersigned the presentation, and yet they may still veto him. The person is selected by the patron — the right to name is, by the scheme, to remain with him ; — and by him the individual 'is presented to the Church. And then the Church submits that individual to the people, and gives the latter a sovereign right to reject the person, (presented to the Church for the judgment and approval of the Presbytery), without the Church being entitled to say whether he is fit or not. The Church do not receive a person presented to them by the concurring choice oi patron and people : In that case, the people would be exhausted — no further recurrence would be made to them at all. The person would be at once tried by the Presbytery. But the scheme of the Veto is exactly the reverse. The person is selected and nominated by the patron alone. That is the law — that is proposed to he the law under the Veto scheme. Now the trial and admission of the person nominat ed, no matter by whom presented, is the power of collation, the province of decision, which belongs to the Church Courts. But^the first step taken by the Church is to devolve that duty over on the people, — with out APPEAL OR REVIEW, if they reject. No doubt, if they do not re ject, the Presbytery may still pronounce the man to be unfit. But if the people reject, the Presbytery never again hear of the man. The power of deciding that the individual is fit — is calculated to promote the objects of the ministry, and to labour for the people's good — is, in that event taken from the Presbytery — devolved over by the Church to the people. One half, then, of the province of collation, of the duty of trials — of the power of judgment, is taken from the Presbytery ; and that not the least important and valuable — certainly not the least sacred 172 and necessary function of a Christian Church, viz , that of opposing It self, with the just authority of its Divine commission, to causeless pre judices — to imperfect and erroneous opinions — to tendencies to false doctrines — to the many faults in corrupt human nature, which render the truth unacceptable — and to the innumerable causes which may lead men to reject a faithful and sound and plain expounder of the Divine Word; — the duty of opposing itself to injustice, if that is committed, to say nothing of higher objects, and of declaring that the intended pastor is well qualified for the work of the gospel ministry in that parish. It may be that such a man is only the more called for, because the peo ple reject him. ' We are to moderate between them.' I am much at a loss to know on what view of the working of the Veto law this notion proceeds. If it means that the result of difference of opinion ought to lead both, or either, of the parties, to choose an individual whom thePresbyteryfavour, and so practically to throw the selection into the hands of the latter, I perfectly understand that ; with a great portion of the Church, this Is thought to be a most desirable result, which the Veto law is very likely to bring about. But there Is not, I believe, a layman In Scotland who would not deprecate such a result. And yet there Is really no other way, if the people differ from the patron's choice, In which the Presby tery can moderate. ' We are judges of the special fitness as much still as ever !' Indeed ! Let us take a case. Have there not been parishes, in which certain strange heresies had of late made considerable progress ? Parishes in which tendencies to false doctrines had been exhibited and made secretly great progress .? Congregations and sessions, in which such errors had manifested themselves .? — though many of the individuals in the con gregation remained for a long time in communion with the Church. I shall suppose that they had remained a little longer, notwithstanding the depositions of their clergymen, to which the General Assembly were at last driven. And I shall suppose that the patrons, exercising a great public trust, and scandalized at the occurrence of these absurd heresies, whether in the metropolis of Scotland, or In country parishes, had spe cially selected some one eminently qualified by theological learning, to combat with and expose such errors — the best champion of the truth who could be chosen ; but on that very account less acceptable to the strong tendencies to false doctrine prevalent among the people, (notwithstand ing the deposition which had marked the opinions of the Church), than a less ardent divine, a more ordinary man, might be : — and in such a case, the very individual who is the best qualified, shall be rejected, and vetoed by the people. And yet Dr. Chalmers says, — that the Presby tery remain, under the veto, as much the judges of special fitness as heretofore. Why, the fact is, that none can ever be settled, whom the people do not wish to have. They may veto — the act of Assembly ad mits it to be fitting and proper — and their right is admitted by the pre sent regulations, to veto successively as often as they choose, though each man may have been chosen on the recommendation of, or by the Presbytery itself, on account of the special circumstances of the parish. 173 It is no immaterial objection to the principle propounded by the Church, that it does not even provide for the prevalence of notorious error, heresy, and false doctrine ; and that is one illustration of the force and importance of the objection I am now considering. The Roll made up and signed determines the/lght. It cannot be touched or al tered. The prevalence of false doctrine may be notorious: — Its effects most lamentable. But the communicants are the Christian people. Their right to reject — their ' discernment of the Gospel' — ' their perception ' of the truth,' have all been admitted by the Church. It is for the ' Chris- ' tian good of the people,'' that the Church has legislated. The right is acknowledged. And so the people must be allowed to go on to exercise the right when it is most plainly the duty of the Church to prevent their doing so, even if in other cases they should permit such rejection. It may be said that, by long and tedious inquiry — by putting men to the test of examination on the standards of the Church — by catechising, &c., the Church may deprive them of their privileges. I doubt greatly whether any such inquiry would be competent under the Veto act, after a vacancy has occurred, and when the presentee has been named. The existing law acknowledges and gives to those actually in communion with the Church and on the adjusted Roll, a right to exercise the Veto. No provision is made for the possibility of such a case as that of heresy. But supposing such a violation of all rules should be attempted in a flagrant case, yet years might elapse before this arbitrary invasion of the provisions of the Veto law could be carried through ; and even then, how difficult to prove heresy, especially as to laymen, whom you are not entitled to subject to the same examinations as ministers, and whose opinions you seldom could get at, on such points, with accuracy, even if you did so interrogate them. And thus, however fit, in the judgment and opinion of the Church, the presentee may be, the power of rejecting him as unfit, is given by the Church to the people, under whatever erroneous or heretical opinions they may for the time labour, without any reservation of the right to revise that rejection, or any practical means of controlling the exercise of the Veto, even where it is most ob vious that it will be glaringly perverted and misapplied. The people in the whole parishes in the country are supposed in all circumstances and at all times to be entitled and qualified to exercise the irresponsible power which the Church commit to them : and the power is acknowledged to be a right which arises from the mere fact of being In communion with the Church. Thus the very ground, on which it is admitted by the declaration In the Veto law, makes It obtain in principle equally throughout the whole country, and under all cir cumstances. And aware of the Impossibility of making any other than an universal enactment, consistently with the principle on which the Veto law is founded, the act of Assembly 1834, and the regulations supplementary to it, do not admit of such a case as individuals, or of a parish, not being allowed to exercise the Veto, or of their votes being disallowed on any ground whatever. (2.) It is really singular to find such attempts to reconcile, in this 174 manner, the admitted prerogative and duty of the Church Courts with the Veto. Be the Veto right or wrong, its effect surely is beyond question. No ingenuity can alter the plain fact, that the person is selected by the patron, and then is submitted by the Church to the final judgment and decision of the people, so far as they choose to reject. Is that not an abandonment of the great duty of deciding on qualification and fitness ? It is one thing for the Church to consider any decided repugnance by the great bulk of the parish, and to inquire into the grounds of it, giving effect to it when founded on rational objections which prove that the individual is not qualified — not qualified, if you choose, for that parish. But the principle of the Veto is totally different. It is, that the Church submits the individual to the judgment of the people. It is one thing to leave by law to the people and the patron to choose the person who is to be presented to the Church for trial: — Of course, such choice would just be popular election ; for the patron must yield in such a case. The Veto in principle professes studiously to avoid this — professes to be a mode of supporting and retaining pa tronage entire. That it gives practically half the right to the people, is true. But, in so far as the relative position of the Church to the people is concerned, the patronage remains wholly with the patron. A person duly chosen and selected is presented to the Church, and then the Church, with whom is the grand duty and power of judgment, submits the person to the judgment of the congregation, and allows the person to be rejected, without retaining any power to review that judgment, and to pronounce the man to be fit and qualified. Most justly, therefore, might Dr. Muir protest against the recent resolution of the Assembly to abide by the Veto law. ' 1. Because the decision pronounced by the majority of this House, ' does not expressly recognize the power and prerogative intrusted direct- ' ly by the Lord Jesus Christ, the sole Head of the Church, to the ' Ecclesiastical Courts, as at once the Representatives and Guides of the ' Christian people, viz. the power and prerogative of solely judging and ' determining on the qualifications of Intrants to the Holy Ministry. ' 2. Because the said measure, as it recognizes that the first princl- ' pie for determining on the qualifications and fitness of Intrants to the ' Ministry in a Parish, is " the will of the Congregation," affords no ' security for the introducing of sound and evangelical Teachers, in the ' times when the people have come, through defection from " the truth " as it is in Jesus," not to choose wholesome doctrine ; and when, ' therefore, in the exercise of their simple resolution and sovereign plea- ' sure, they may reject godly and faithful Teachers, whom the Church ' is solemnly bound to provide for the people, " whether they will hear, " or whether they will forbear." '* * It is with some satisfaction that I recollect that, in 1834, I took the same ground in my reasons of protest against the original measure. 175 Dr. Chalmers himself drew the distinction correctly. He admit- ed the principle now contended for most fully, when he said ip his recent speech, in explaining his own original view of the subject : ' What I wished to be done was to proclaim that power, (the Church's ' power to put her own Veto on any nomination), and follow it up in ' every instance by a series of righteous decisions ; and this I said ' should be our contribution to the cause of Ecclesiastical reform. But ' while I felt perfectly clear as to the state of the relation between the ' patron and the Church, I was not for our meddling at the time with ' the state of the relation between the patron and the people.'' The distinction is indeed great between the most extensive view which can be taken of the jurisdiction of Presbyteries in regard to the trial and admission of presentees, and of the grounds on which they may reject, on the one hand, and the scheme, on the other, of giving to the congregation a right to reject the person selected by the patron, without the reasons being known, inquired into, or considered by the Presbytery. The one is the jurisdiction of the Church, more or less exten sive, according to the view which may be taken of that jurisdiction — to be exercised by the Church Courts — subject to the controul which publicity always creates, and to the security which will exist, that arbitrary, harsh, or extreme rejections by Church Courts, are not like ly often to occur. The other is a deference by the Church to the will of the people as supreme, — an abandonment of the right of the Church to consider the grounds of rejection, and an admission that the Church must acknowledge the will of their people to be a matter beyond their province of inquiry and judgment as a Church — into the grounds and reasons of which they have no right to inquire. Whether the Church is to inquire into the acceptableness of the pre sentee to the parish or not, — whether the Church is to consider special fitness for the particular charge or not, — whether the Church is to con sider, on these or any similar grounds, however general, the propriety of settling the presentee, otherways qualified, in the particular parish, still, in any such case, it is the Church, the regular judicatories of the Church, who are to deliberate and to decide : — the matter is for the judgment and decision of the Church. The grounds of objection, whatever they are, are to be considered by the Presbyteries, — parties heard before them, — the whole grounds of objection, or repugnance, or dislike, are to be inquired into and considered, — the sentence is by the spiritual guides of the people, and is appealable to the Synod and As sembly. In that case, no part of the authority or jurisdiction of the Church is surrendered. The objectors must state their reasons. These may be in sufficient, viewed as the objections of a single individual ; and yet the Presbytery may be satisfied that, when stated by the great bulk of the parishioners, they are entitled to more weight, and require serious con sideration. But, whatever the grounds of objection are to the special fitness of the presentee for the particular parish to which he is present ed, these, according to the view now referred to, are judged of by the 176 Presbytery, and the decision of the Church either confirms them, or, with the authority belonging to their sacred functions, overrules them as groundless. In so far as the will oithe people is also to be regarded, it Is, accord ing to the theory I am now adverting to, to be considered by the Church Courts, who would look to the knowledge which the people can have of the individual, to the grounds of their dislike, to the character of the congregation, and the weight due to its opinion, and to the probability that, not being really founded on any objections to his gifts and qualifi cations, it will be soon overcome by faithful service and assiduous labours: and would act firmly and authoritatively on the important principle, that it is not for their Christian good that the Church should give way to capricious and unfounded dislike,-^— supposing that it should not ap pear that the opposition of the parish originates in the mere desire to have another person. This is the proper attitude of the Church, (whatever the views taken of its jurisdiction), as that intrepid and venerable champion of Presby tery, the late Sir Henry Moncreiff, emphatically states, and that of ob jectors, Is the proper position for the people to stand in, according to the principles and practice of the Presbyterian Church in all times. Dr. Chalmers candidly admits that, till within eighteen days of the debate in the General Assembly, this was the ground he was -prepared to take as the true constitutional view of the subject : viz — The Veto act being repealed, to let the Presbytery judge, in each case, of the fitness of the individual, — taking into account the opinion or repugnance of the people, according to the opinion of the Presbytery upon the whole circumstances of the case. But, he says, this ground was cut from under his feet by the opinions of your Lordship and Lord Brougham, in which he supposes you intended specially to define what fell under the definition of qualifications, with a view to exclude in all circumstances any consideration of fitness for the particular charge to which he is presented. If it had been so, it is surely a singular ground for going further than he avows he thought, and still thinks, that the Church could legally go, viz., that he finds that the highest court in the kingdom had found that the Church could not competently go even so far as he thought it could. I am unable also to perceive why, if the prerogative and duty of the Church Courts were disputed, he should go into the very opposite extreme of renouncing and abandoning their high and paramount duties, and of abiding by this peremptory right of rejection, — which again, in other three weeks, when he publishes his speech, he thinks should be subjected to such important and sweeping restrictions. But passing over this, I apprehend that Dr. Chalmers and others have wholly misunderstood the purport of the observations in the opin ions, delivered in the House of Lords, on which he comments. Your Lordship will permit me to advert shortly to this misappre hension, for it bears upon a very important point in the question now raised by the Church. 177 The supporters of the Veto choose to confound, in the discussions at present going on, two matters essentially different, — the one, the Juris diction of the Church, and the extent to which thePresbytery is entitled to consider every matter which touches the qualifications of the presen tee, including qualifications for the particular parish to which he has been presented ; and the other, the right oi the people to reject the pre sentee, merely because they choose to do so. Whatever view is taken of the former point cannot possibly bear upon the other, viz., whether the people have, by the constitution of the Church, a right so to reject. In one view which may be taken of the former point, it may be thought by many that it becomes expedient to give the people that right of rejection. But that is not what the Church says. They maintain that the people possess, and aUvays have possessed, a right to reject. Then, of course, that right ought equally to be acknowledged and admitted, however large the view which may be taken of the jurisdiction of the Presbytery. Accordingly the right was contended for on grounds perfectly inde pendent of and separate from the question of the jurisdiction of the Pres bytery, and the extent to which they may go In deciding upon the pro priety of settling the individual in the parish to which he has been pre sented. All the grounds which have been stated in order to prove that, either by the practice of the Church, or on the religious or constitutional principles admitted by the Church, the people are entitled to put a Veto on the selection of the individual who is proposed for their pastor, apply with equal force to prove that such must be their right, whatever opinion the Presbytery may form as to the propriety of attending to their expres sion of dislike. I quite understand that in proportion as the jurisdiction of the Pres byteries may appear to be narrowed, so as to exclude altogether the con sideration of qualification for the particular parish, many may on that account think that it becomes necessary and expedient that in that case the parish shall judge and decide for itself But this is at best a rea son for bestowing the power. The view taken by Dr. Chalmers is, that owing to the perusal of the opinions delivered in the House of Lords, he must now adhere to the acknowledgment that the people, in all cases and in all circumstances, have always had the right to reject, although eighteen days before he was prepared for the opposite course, of allow ing theVeto law to be repealed, and then maintaining that the Presby tery, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, was entitled to judge and decide in the whole circumstances, whether, taking into account the views of the people, the individual was qualified for that particular parish. Now, in that case, the Presbytery might and would have decided for them selves whether any dislike on the part of the people was ' truly founded ' on objections personal to the presentee,'' and so of sufficient weight, and would have settled or rejected the individual, according as it might appear that the opposition was unreasonable, or too serious to be in their opinion disregarded. On that view, there would have been no right acknowledged or exercised corresponding in principle to the Veto. But if such a principle exists in the Church, as a right to reject — if 178 the people have, by the law of the Church, that right, it is one surely which must be admitted and acknowledged equally, whatever opinions were supposed to be delivered in the House of Lords in regard to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Presbytery. If, indeed, the minds of men are so unsettled upon all these questions, that the acknowledgment of a previous and original right, belonging to the people of the Establishment from the time of the Reformation, is to be confounded with the power of the Assembly to bestow or withhold it, according to the expediency of the moment ; and if, when it is expedi ent to bestow the right for the first time, the language used is to be the same as if a right had always existed, which the Church has no power whatever in that case to wltbhold, being as much a portion of the consti tution of the Established Church as the jurisdiction of Presbyteries, it is not surprising that such a distinction should be overlooked. But we are at present dealing with the grave and positive assertion oi a constitutional principle — with the assertion of a right — not with any claim on the part of the Church to give or bestow — to acknowledge or withhold at pleasure such a privilege. It appears to me to be most material to keep in view these three sim ple propositions — 1. That any questions raised as to the jurisdiction of the Church in regard to qualification, cannot affect the point, whether there is actually, and has always been, a settled law in the constitution of the Church of Scotland, that the people shall have a right to reject the presentee. 2. That whenever Dr. Chalmers admits that the Church may Im pose restraints upon the exercise of that power — may disallow the judg ment passed, or may disallow the votes of individuals exercising the power, the privilege, call it what you may, is then no longer a right oi rejection, but something totally undefined and unknown, which we are now for the first time to explain, define, regulate, and modify, according to views of expediency and fitness, — in other words, to bestow by legislation. 3. That if the Church may give or withhold that privilege — may themselves judge of the dislike, or may establish it to be a peremptory or necessary bar to admission — if the Church is to take either view, as it deems expedient, that again is, on the part of the Church, legislation by the Assembly on the subject — not the acknowledgment of a right on the part of congregations, which it behoves the Church both to admit them selves, and to uphold against all interference by the State. No view then which might be taken of the expressions employed in the opinions in the House of Lords, in regard to the jurisdiction of Presby teries, could warrant the course taken by the Assembly in asserting the Veto by the people, as a matter of right, to which the Church was de termined to adhere and enforce, which did not equally result from the judgment of the Court of Session. The very acknowledgment of Dr. Chalmers, that, until he read the opinions in the House of Lords, he would have been content to fall back on the jurisdiction of Presbyteries, and to uphold their right to reject no the presentee, provided they thought the opposition required that judg ment, seems completely to establish that, according to his viws, the decision of the Court of Session could not be complained of, and that the Church was not warranted, constitutionally, to assert that the ^'^eto, as a matter of rig lit, must be enforced in all cases, and in all parishes. That your Lordship, or Lord Brou;,>ham, in your opinions, went fur ther than the majority of the Court of Session had done — (the judg ment is one merely of simple affrmance) — that you intended to pro nounce any opinion as to the extent of jurisdiction of Presbyteries on cases coming properly before them for judicial decision,, and to exclude any matters which fall under qualification in any sense of that term, it will not be easy to persuade those conversant with such matters. There is not one sentence in either opinion, which either goes beyond the point actually decided, or beyond the views on which the Court of Session proceeded in giving judgment. I shall take the liberty of briefly adverting to these opinions, in order to introduce some remarks on the jurisdiction of Presbyteries, on which I think the Veto so materially encroaches. In considering these opinions. It is to be remembered, that the Veti) has always been dealt with in two points of view ; \st. Have the people a right to reject ? and, '2dly, Can the Presbytery reject, — not on any judgment formed by themselves, but simply on account of a dissent by the people ? But the latter point is only another way of expressing the same question, for the Veto does not admit of the Pre.sbyterles considering of the rejection at all. They must set aside the presentee when he is vetoed. Your Lordship certainly was of opinion that rejection on account of the mere dislike of the people, — stating no objections, bringing no facts before the Presbytery for judgment, taking the matter wholly out of the hands of the Church ; a dissent admitted to have the effect in it self of a Veto on the presentation, — a complete peremptory rejection, — was totally Incompetent, — incompetent according to any law or prac tice even of the Church. I think Dr. Chalmers has himself admitted its novelty. But it does not appear that your Lordship or Lord Brougham ever intended to define, (to decide of course was out of the question), what did fall under qualification when forming the grounds oi judg ment by the Presbytery on objections stated to them ; or to exclude any elements for their judicial consideration which specially affected the qualifications of the individual. The mere dislike of the people, — (groundless, unjust, capricious, it might be, in the opinion of the Pres bytery, and yet without the latter having either the right to inquire into it or to disallow it,) — most assuredly you excluded : — For you held that the people were not in law, or by the practice of the Church itself, either patrons or judges, — that they had no right of nomina tion or of Veto on the nomination, — that they had no right of judg ment. They are to be objectors, but to the Presbytery belongs, pro perly and exclusively, the power of decision ; and when the matter is put as a case for the judgment of the Presbytery, I find nothing in the opinions in question which, when so understood, and not misapplied M 180 by taking Individual expressions without reference to the subject matter of discussion, touches even the competency of the Presbytery sitting as a court, or the extent of its jurisdiction as to the subjects on which it is to form and pronounce a judgment, — provided it be a proper judgment on the qualifications of the Individual. But to give effect to the will or pleasure of another body you do hold to be incompetent, and among other reasons, because It is no judgment whatever by the Presbytery on the qualifications oi the party presented to the Church for trial. In the course of the opinions of your Lordship and Lord Brougham, a variety of expressions and observations occur, (as in the opinions of the judges of the Court of Session), in order to shew that the terras, ' qualified,' or ' qualifications,' applied to an individual to be named, cannot include the ' dislike' of another party who is not referred to as having any power of rejection ; ' that it does not comprise the quallfi- ' cation of popular favour ;' that ' within its scope cannot be brought the ' acceptableness and reception of the party presented to the congrega- ' tion as finding favour in their sight;' and that it would be a violent strain upon the law to Impute to the term qualified any such meaning. I need not notice the reference Dr. Chalmers makes to the observa tions by Lord Brougham and your Lordship, on the arguments press ed on the House of Lords respecting the Call ; for in truth, the point as to concurrence or assent of any kind, does not enter into the Veto at all, or into the resolution of last Assembly. In the opinions in the House of Lords, the jurisdiction of the Pres bytery is referred to, with reference to the points I have already men- - tioned, and in order to shew that no correct view of their jurisdiction respecting qualification could include the point of mere dislike by the people, the grounds of which the Presbytery were not permitted to consider. For no other purpose was the question as to the jurisdiction of the Presbytery referred to or discussed. What matters may be in cluded under the general term qualifications — what objections will be competent under the general power (for it is alluded to in the most gene ral terms) of objecting to doctrine, life, conversation, morals, or other ministerial gifts — to the individuaFs qualifications, whether for the mi nistry or for the particular parish, matters personal to him — are neither further discussed nor referred to. It would indeed be difficult to define what, shall or shall not be competent under a term which — precisely be cause your Lordship held it to have personal reference to the particidar individual, and not to another party's estimate of that individual — may vary with all the matters in which that individual may in himself be found deficient. I am quite persuaded that no one conversant with such subjects could ever take a different view of these opinions ; and I doubt not that your Lordship will be surprised to find that the General Assembly have been urged and stimulated to come to the resolution which they have adopted, because it has been imputed to you that you had deliberately intended to pronounce a judgment generally on the extent of the juris- 181 diction of the Presbytery, in deciding upon the matter of qwilificafion, in the sense in which you understood that term, viz, e.xcluding the dissent of the people, given without any reason, which undoubtedly was excluded. But I own I do not easily understand this part of Dr. Chalmers's speech, — viz. the explanation he gives of the reassons for changing his views as to what ought to be done by the Assembly. True, — the opinions in the House of Lords declare that the Presby tery cannot reject, simply because the people say, — We will not have this presentee. But so had the judgment of the Court oj' Session — as explicitly — in as unqualified terms. If, then. Dr. Chalmers holds — as in another part of his speech he does, apparently in the broadest sense of the terms — that the people are entitled to prevent a presentee being settled, simply because they do not wish to have him, — without stating any reason, and without being either called upon, or able, to state any ; and that the Presbytery, on that ground, are hound and entitled to reject. — then, to be sure, his view Is entirely excluded, by the deliber ate judgment of your Lordship, not merely as to the import of the sta tutes of the Legislature, but on the laws and practice and principles of the Established Church, as pleaded and stated by the Church itself be fore the House of Lords. But it was equally and not less excludedhy the judgment of the Court of Session. The latter did all that the House of Lords did, — for you simply affirmed their judgment, and that judg ment completely excluded the principle of the Veto in every view which Dr. Chalmers states of it. I cannot see, therefore, what the views of Dr. Chalmers are which were reconcilable with the judgment of the Court of Session, but which your opinions excluded : — or how the course of obedience to the law — of taking the presentee on trials — but of asserting the right of the Presby tery to judge of every thing which touched bis qualifications, which Dr. Chalmers thought was the proper course for the Church to pursue, he- fore he read the opinions in the House of Lords, became improper af ter he read them. The truth is, it is the right of rejection by the people which Dr. Chalmers abides by, and which the judgments equally of both Courts disallow. But when that is the ground taken, let us at least see it cor rectly stated and avowed, — for it is a very different thing, indeed, from the Church being compelled to take the ground it has done, no-t on this point of the Veto, but in consequence of the House of Lords improper ly and incompetently going out of the cause before them, to decide up on and limit the jurisdiction of the Church Courts on matters of quali fication, by defining that jurisdiction in a way totally different from the Court of Session, and in reference to points which could never even arise in that cause. I cannot biit think that Dr. Chalmers has not cleared up, in his own mind, some of these matters. He did truly mean to take his stand for the Veto, as disallowed by the 182 Court of Session, elsehis speech and his motion In the circumstanceshave no meaning. Both are studiously framed to assert It — to abide by It. That he had very suddenly changed the course which he intended to pursue, cannot be questioned. He states that explicitly. But the ground on which he altered his view of the course which the Church should adopt, he has not .succeeded in explaining. The judgment of the Court of Session, and the opinions delivered by the Judges of that Court, should equally have produced the view he ultimately took. No doubt, he says the motion was given by him to others to put in to shape ; and it is curious enough, that, in the note already quoted, he proposes tivo most important alterations in and limitations on that very law of the Veto, or rather on that right of rejection, which, according to his motion, in express reference to the Veto law and the decision on it, the Church declares that in duty it must enforce, acknowledge, and give effect to, whatever are the consequences. But his Committee claims the sanction of the Legislature to the principle of the Veto act as It has been passed, i.e. to the right oi rejection, without any modifications of It, as the very least effect which ought to be given to the will of the people. The point then raised by the motion of the Assembly, is the right of the people to reject without reasons assigned, and without the Presby tery being entitled to call for these reasons, or to decide upon the fit ness of the person whom a majority choose to reject. Dr. Chalmers is well aware what a fatal blow will be given both to the duties of Presbyteries, to the principle of Presbytery itself, and to the interests of religion, by the unqualified and permanent esta blishment of this peremptory and absolute right of rejection : If the acknowledgment shall be finally made by the Church and by the State that the right exists, it becomes incompetent for the Church to restrict it, as it will be impracticable to withdraw it : And therefore he pro poses now his restrictions on the right. But these, as I shall afterwards shew, are inconsistent with the principle contended for ; and any hope of the Committee ever adopting such important restrictions on the right, and departing from the principle, is wholly dissipated by the ' official ' statement' of the Committee. We must look to the question, then, in reference to the absolute right of Veto which the General Assembly has adopted, and which the Committee now urge upon the Legislature. This relative position of the Church to the people is not the theory of the ecclesiastical constitution of the Church which the State adopted. That is now, 1 may say, admitted. Dr. Chalmers admits that he never thought it was. Such is not, moreover, the theory or practice of the constitution of the Church, at any period ; for it is not even pretended that the Veto was borrowed from any older but obsolete regulation, the same either in substance or jirinciple. Beyond all question, such was not the theory of the powers and func tions of Presbytery, even by the Directory 1649, when Parliament, abolishing patronage wholly, and establishing popular election, left 183 to the Church the regulation of the relative positions of Church and people. It is to this abandonment of the functions of Presbytery that I spe cially object, under this head of my observations. That it is a great practical change in the Church of Scotland, is surely no light objection. But it is also a change in one of the fundamental doctrines of Presby tery — a change in the government of the Church by Presbyteries, in whom reside the great duty of deciding upon the qualifications of those nominated to livings. It is in vain to deny the distinction, the broad fundamental distinc tion, between giving the people a right to elect as patrons, and submit ting to their judgment — I should say to their approval or rejection — the individual presented by the patron. In the latter case they are to decide upon fitness and qualifications. The Church commit that power to them absolutely in the event that they choose to reject. They de mit that power in favour of the people, who may reject a person emi nently qualified for that particular parish, in the judgment and know ledge of the Presbytery itself And a surrender, therefore, or abandon ment of one of the great functions of Presbytery, the Veto beyond all question is, in any consistent view which can be taken of it. But because the dislike of the people is held not to be matter of qua lification, and because the Presbyteries are held not to have a power to reject, simply because the people do not choose to have the individual, without assigning any reasons, is it implied in this, that the jurisdic tion of the Presbytery, in judging of the qualifications of the presentee in the largest sense of that term, is in any degree restricted or disputed .? If I understand the judgment of the court, it partly proceeded upon that very view of their duties and powers as matter of established law, the departure from which 1 deprecate as most objectionable in principle. If the mere dissent of the people is excluded, then you go at once in to matter of qualifications in the individual himself, — into the inquiry of objections to the person presented. No doubt, if Dr. Chalmers maintains that the mere dissent of the people, without reasons, is matter of qualification — that they have a right to reject, or that the Presbytery, on that ground, may find him not qualified, that is one view — the maintenance of which is plain diso bedience to the law, but equally against the law of the Court of Session as of the House of Lords. But when that is the view contended for, let us remember that it beyond all doubt excludes the possibility of any modifications or restraints of any kind on the Veto. But wishing to keep now to the objection which I have at present stated to the scheme of the Veto, I am anxious that the extent and nature of the jurisdiction of Presbyteries should be kept in view, before a measure shall be countenanced which takes from the Presbyteries their duty in every case in which the people choose to reject the presentee. I have always wished to see some explanation of the grounds of ob jection to what is called the special fitness of the presentee for the par- 184 ticular parish to which he has been presented, exclusive of the mere dis sent of the people, which It is said the judgment prevents the Presby tery from taking Into consideration. It is not easy to understand how any other matter whatever, beyond a dislike for which no reason need be or Is stated, is excluded from the consideration of the Presbytery. If, however, this doctrine of special fitness for a particular parish, only means — Do the people choose to have him, or do they dissent, then let us keep to plain terms and expressions upon the subject. But when Dr. Chalmers thinks that the opinions delivered in the House of Lords have made a sweeping encroachment on the jurisdiction of Presbyteries, beyond the declaration contained in the interlocutor of the Court of Session, (viz. that a rejection on account of the mere dissent or Veto of the people was illegal,) one must presume that he alludes to some important matters on which Presbyteries are, in the practice and in the theory of the Church, accustomed or entitled to proceed. At all events, before the Legislature is expected to make so important a change as to sanction the Veto on account of the danger to which such jurisdiction of the Church would otherwise be exposed, it is necessary to consider what, beyond the mere dissent of the people, is to be thereby saved and upheld. What are then these grounds of special fitness ? That the individual is not able for the duties of that parish, — feeble in body, and unfit for pastoral exertions, — disqualified by blindness, — by any infirmity, — of a voice that cannot fill any Church, much less the large one which he aspires to fill, — that his appearance and manner Is de ficient in the gravity or seriousness of deportment of a Christian minister, — that his conduct is boisterous, rude, and unseemly, — or that his habits, associates, and pursuits, are not those which become his calling, — I would take any such objections, however vague or general, — and I should wish to ascertain which of all these do not enter.into and fall within the matter of qualification. True, the Presbytery is to judge : Their opinion up on hearing the objection is to decide, not the opinion of the people; and it is true that slight defects in some of these and similar particulars will not be held by ihe Presbytery to be sufficient to disqualify the pre sentee. But still such objections all more or less affect the individual's qualifications, and in the degree in which they exist, may plainly amount to direct personal defects. It is very remarkable that, in all the discussions on this subject, not withstanding all that is said on the subject of special fitness, one never meets with any statement of the class of objections included in that term, to preserve which the Veto can be required, in addition to that of the mere dissent or Veto of the people, — and which may not all be consid ered and judged of by the Presbytery, with the people before them as objectors, stating such points for inquiry and decision. I -will take an actual case as an illustration, the more so as it is always quoted as one which proves the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Church Courts, and which marked at least what was the impression and understanding of the individual now addressing your Lordship, when He 185 held public office. A gentleman obtained a presentation from the Crown to the parish of Dunkeld, who was unacquainted with Gaelic, or nearly so. It was urged by the parishioners that Gaelic was necessary for many of them, — at all events, that many understood it better than English, except for the mere purposes of ordinary conversation, and that preaching in English alone, or that any other serious communication with them, would be very much thrown away upon them, — that, like many other parishes, they had had Gaelic service half the day, — and that the Church required invariably a knowledge of that language in such circumstances. Before the case came to the Assembly, a strong Impression had been produced by circumstances in the conduct of the Presbytery, that they had stirred up the opposition, — and that the objection to the want of Gaelic was merely a pretext for not settling the individual. I was then Solicitor-General, and a member of the Assembly. I had been strongly impressed with the conviction that the case was truly of the complexion I have mentioned; but the only point on which 1 ever entertained any doubt was as to the reality and truth of the objection : — Of the competency of such an objection, 1 never entertained any doubt. This case is always ap pealed to as a fivourite illustration of the objections to specialfitness for particular parishes, of which it is contended the Presbytery is entitled to judge, — and most justly contended, when that term is properly under stood. In the course of the debate I became satisfied, on the evidence, such as it was, before the Assembly, that Gaelic was a proper qualification for that parish, and that the heritors had obtained the presentation without stating the circumstances of the parish sufficiently to the Crown. I did not think it fitting to give my vote, on an opinion formed in the course of the debate, against an individual holding the Crown presentation, but I withdrew at the close of the debate, (notwithstanding the great keenness with which the point was discussed as to the question of fact), because I could not vote In support of the presentation. But the only question of competency which was raised, was as to the time when the fact should be inquired into ; and on the objection Itself the one motion was simply to appoint a Committee of the Assembly to inquire into the fact, — the other, to find the fact proved, and not proceed with the settlement of the presentee, and to intimate that decision to the officers of the Crown. The validity of the judgment was acknowledged by every one. But I well recollect that, in the elaborate and masterly speech of Dr. Andrew Thomson, no such ground was ever hinted at, as that the simple dislike of the people, without reason assigned, was, by the law or practice of the Church, a ground for the Church Courts rejecting the individual. In these and other similar questions, the point arises, on reasons stated for the cognizance aud determination of the Presbytery, whether the person whom the patron presents to a particular parish is qualified, and qualified for that parish. The Church requires Gaelic for a proper Gaelic parish, — then Gaelic is as much a qualification, as much matter of fitness in such a case, as the knowledge of Latin or Greek. My friend, Dr. Muir, puts, — for the case of a parish where the number of Roman Catholics is great, — accurate knowledge of the points of controversy be- 186 tween the Popish and Reformed Churches; and, justly : — That is one of the leading subjects, — I do not say of controversial divinity, but — of sound theology, according to the faith of the Protestant Churches, — of ' the truth as it is in Jesus ' Who can doubt that the examination of the Presbytery may be carried to any extent upon that subject, — that wherever they think the qualifications of the presentee, as a defender and expounder of the distinguishing doctrines oithe Church to which he belongs, may be peculiarly required, and the individual is found deficient in such particulars, he may be justly rejected. In truth, the same judgment might justly be pronounced in regard to any parish towhlch the individual might have been presented. The circumstances of the parish, to which he has been presented, peculiarly press upon the Presbytery an examination Into these points, on which he is bound to be qualified, — more than into many others less prominently forced in that case on their attention- Then he was bound to be ready to meet such examina tion and tests. The individual then is, properly speaking, not quall- fied- Thls, again, is a case of judgment on qualificatums. Dr. Muir seems partly to have been misled by the use made by Dr Chal mers of detached portions of the opinions in the Auchterarder Case, for he doubts (if I understand his speech correctly on this point) whether the competency of the Presbytery to decide on such grounds is not bar red by the opinions in the House of Lords. I cannot find one sentence which excludes such a view of the jurisdiction of the Church Courts. The case put by Dr. Muir is most plainly one of qualification, — of proper qualification. The very ground of inquiry in such a case might be gone into in every case. The case of Dunkeld, indeed, goes much further. I do not think one word, in the opinions referred to, touches the point of the jurisdiction of the Church on any similar points. And here one must lament, considering the statement which Dr. Ci'almers has given of the fluctuation of his own views, that the motion of my Reverend Friend and Pastor for delay, and for the appointment of a Committee merely to deliberate and report to the next Assembly, as to the position the Church was placed in, had not been adopted by Dr. Chalmers and those who voted with him. Dr. Chalmers at once assum ed a ground totally different from that which, eighteen days before, he was prepared to take on this Important constitutional question, — and that, too, it seems merely from perusing the opinions delivered in the House of Lords, which, on careful consideration, it must be admitted he has misapprehended. What a ground for hurrying the Church into the extreme position at once assumed by his motion, — what an illustration of the manner in which a popular Body may be worked upon and misled in the heat of first impression ! How few pro bably of the ministers from the country had considered these opinions! How slightly could Dr. Chalmers himself have considered them in the few days which Intervened after the publication of the Report, when he Interpreted them into a denial of the jurisdiction of the Church on points which were not before the House of Lords ! 187 Biit the ground taken by Dr. Chalmers was pre-eminently one,— a'tering, as it did, his intentions, — which should have led to delay, to deliberation, to inquiry. How it should lead to the very oppo.site course from that which he had intended to recommend, — viz. of asserting the prerogative and duties of the Church Courts, — he has not explained. Let us consider what is the ground on which Dr. Chalmers specially defends the right claimed for the people to reject — without stating a reason — the person presented to them by the patron, and for excluding the jurisdiction of the Presbytery to consider the grounds of rejection. It is this : — ' That the people could say no more ; yet said most truly, that ' the pr. sentee did not preach the gospel, and that in the doctrine he ' gave there was no food for the niurishmcnt of their souls;'' that there exists ' this discernment of the gospel, this just perception of truth, on ' the part of a home-bred peasantry, though unable to assign the prin- ' ciples or reasons,' to a greater extent than ' their just perception of ' beauty, though unable to assign the philosophy of taste ;' that they know what is or is not the truth ; what is or is not the true mode of preaching the truth, though they cannot defend or state their reasons. Now, if there is one qualification more than another, of which, ac cording to the fundamental doctrines of Presbytery, (I should think of any Christian Church), the Church are to judge, it is surely, 1st, of soundness of doctrine ; and, 2d, of soundness in the mode of preaching the truth, and sincerity and love of the truth in the preacher. Are the.se matters on which It is possible to say that the people are inca pable even of stating or making known their objections, or on which the Presbyterian clergy are Incompetent to understand their people, unable to enter into their feelings, and not qualified to decide for their true in terests and benefits ? The passage in Dr. Chalmers's speech to which I advert Illustrates forcibly one great fallacy on which his argument proceeds, viz. that the people cannot state or make intelligible their objections, though these may be founded on the most solid grounds, namely, unsound doctrine and unsound mode of preaching the gospel. He says, in a very eloquent passage certainly, — ' There is much, and that the weightiest part by far ' of the internal evidence for Christianity, that rests on the adaptations ' which obtain between its objective truths and the felt necessities or ' desires of our subjective nature, — adaptations powerfully and intimately ' felt by many a possessor of that nature, who is yet unable to propound ' them in language, far less to state or vindicate them at the bar of ' judgment. And if ever the prerogatives of the human conscience ' were at one time more cruelly trampled on than at another, it has been ' within the last century, and at the bar of this House, — when the col- ' lectlve mind of a congregation, who both knew and loved the truth as • It is in Jesus, has been contemptuously set at nought; and the best, ' the holiest feelings of our Scottish patriarchs, by lordly oppressors sit- ' ting in state and judgment over them, were barbarously scorned. \n ' that age of violent settlements, these simple, these unlettered men of ' a rustic congregation, cuuld say no mure, yet said most truly of the 188 ' intruded minister, that he did not preach the Gospel, and that in the ' doctrine he gave there was no food for the nourishment of their souls. ' I cannot image a more painful spectacle than such men as these, the ' worthies of the olden time, at once the pride and the preserving salt ' of our Scottish commonwealth, placed under the treatment and rough « handling of an able, jeering, ungodly advocate, — while coarse and ' contemptuous clergymen, booted and spurred for riding Committees, » were looking on and enjoying the scene; and a loud laugh from the ' seats of these assembled scorners, completed the triumph over the reli- ' gious sensibilities of men, who could but reclaim with their hearts and ' not with their voices. This was the policy of Dr. Robertson, recently ' lauded in high places, — a policy which has dissevered our popu- ' LATioN from our CHURCH, and shed most withering influence ' ovEa THE religion of the families of Scotland ! Re-enact this ' policy If you will, and you place your Kirk as a National Establish- ' ment on the brink of its sure annihilation. Have a care, ye pro- ' fessing friends of order and loyalty, have a care, lest, by a departure ' from the line of resolute and unswerving principle, you strip the ' Church of all moral weight in the eyes of the community. Think ' of the deadly enemies by whom we are encompassed ; and have a care, ' lest, by one hairbreadth of deviation from the path of Integrity and ' honour, you cause the hearts of these Philistines to rejoice.' It is unnecessary to dwell on the exaggeration which furnishes the p'/int to this passage. To defend a change introduced In 1834, it is found necessary to go back to the view which one party takes of what is supposed to have happened eighty or ninety years previously, and to depict imaginary scenes of that age, as if they had any reference to the actual state of matters in the Church. Neither need I advert to the statements introduced as to the personal and general alienation of the people of Sc'Jtland from the Established Church, and the withering influence of the Church over the religion of families In Scotland during the last eighty years. I simply notice these statements, as they are well calculated to create the utm.ost distrust of the practical measures which are founded upon such a view of the state of the feeling towards the Church and of religion throughout the country. Many passages might he quoted from other speeches and publications, descriptive of a very different feeling towards the Church, during his own life, and before the Veto was heard of But the fallacy I advert to is the supposition that the objectors are, as it were, to be personally present at the bar of the Assembly, or must be present and must be able all and individually to explain and defend their objections, either there or before the Pres bytery. I shall suppose that a case has occurred In which individuals in the humbler classes of life think that the presentee does not preach the gospel, and that his doctrine gives no nourishment for their souls Such is their objection — the gravest and most important, certainly, which can be stated. The individuals resolve to state the objection. They may do so personally to the Presbytery, — but all and each need not be able to explain and illustrate their views by public speaking. We all know li3w seldom, if ever, it is that the people are left to state their own opi- 189 nions to the Presbytery. I believe it would be much better if they did so oftener. In all probability the result would lead to prejudices being removed, — to groundless objections being satisfactorily explained. But no sooner is opposition intended, than the array of a legal contest is prepared for, — and the true ground of complaint and regret really was in any cases which occurred before the Veto, — not that the people could not explain personally their objections to the presentee, but that they would not come into contact with the Presbytery, having, in fact, other grounds of opposition than any personal to the presentee, (as in some of the cases mentioned by Lord Moncreiff in his evidence before the Patronage Committee, j and purposely left the matter to be dressed up in the best way it could by the legal ingenuity of their advisers on the spot. It is really too much to suppose that there is any inability to make known to the Presbytery the objections, whatever they are, when all taking Interest In such matters have often seen with regret that the people, on the contrary, purposely abstained from having any personal ¦communication with the Presbytery, and desired to fence themselves round with the armour of legal Ingenuity, in order to fortify objections which they knew not to be tenable. But when the parishioners really have objections to doctrine, and to an unsound mode of preaching the doctrine, there will not be found, in a Scotch parish, any inability to make such objections perfectly plain and intelligible to the neighbouring clergymen — many of whom too, are well and favourably known to the parishioners. Whatever embarrass ment the members of the most rustic congregation might feel, if called upon to state their opinions on other subjects of secular interest, their knowledge of the Bible — their familiarity with the doctrines of the gos pel, derived also from Instruction in the Catechisms of the Church, and from parochial catechising, and examinations of all classes — and the In tense interest which they take in doctrinal matters, can leave no doubt that there will be always found individuals, and many, amply qualified to state and explain their objections, when those are in the least degree of the character adverted to by Dr. Chalmers. His view of this matter is directly opposed to that of many of those who are advocating the Veto, because it seems to ensure, or is a certain stepping-stone to popular election, — for they, on the other hand, sup port these charges partly on the ground of the great religious attainments and Intelligence of the people of Scotland ; — and certainly their view of the subject is both more plausible in theory, and better founded in fact. But it is manifest that Dr. Chalmers's view involves, and in consist ency requires, election or choice by the people. If his view is just, it is not because such objections as he mentions cannot be stated and made intelligible, that you ought to give a peremptory right of rejection, in order to protect those who cannot state such objections. The right to be given on such grounds, ought to be a right to elect ; — because these inward sympathies and feelings and repugnancies, which do not amount to any objection whatever, but which, at the first, and on the impression of the moment, ought nevertheless to have full effect, and to beeonclu- 190 sive in regard to the formation of the bond between pastor and people, can only be completely protected, and the bond properly constituted on such views, by giving the choice to those whose sympathies must be so consulted. Dr. Chalmers's argument necessarily leads to that result. It is in'valn to state it as a ground why the Veto should be a right to reject without reasons, when it is urged only because parishioners can not explain the most weighty, plain, and vital of all the objections which can occur. There may be plausibility in these eloquent passages, when urged in support of election by the people, but they really fall short of the only conclusion which can be drawn from them, when they are stated as rea sons why the Veto is required in order to secure full effect to the plain est and most intelligible objections — the very objections which the hum blest classes not only can state most satisfactorily but perhaps as well or better than many of those greatly superior in worldly education. It is to such objections as these, that Dr, Chalmers says he is anxious to give effect. It is not to gratify mere dislike : it is not to secure choice that he advocates a peremptory Veto, without reasons ; but because these important objections the people often cannot state at all, or make known to the Presbytery : — Hence they must be allowed to reject with out being called on to assign any reason. Yet of all others these are the objections which it Is most easy to make known. Dr. Chalmers continues his remarks as follows: — ' This discernment ' of the gospel, this just perception of truth on the part of a homebred ' peasantry, though unable to assign the principles or reasons, is not ' more marvellous than is their just perception of beauty, though unable ' to assign the philosophy of taste. Hear the most philosophical of all ' our poets, Akenside, who, in his Pleasures of Imagination, bids us " Ask the swain Who journeys homeward from a summer day's Loiiu labour, why, forgetful of his toils And due repose, he loiters to behold The sunshine frleaminif as through amber clouds O'er all the western sky. Full soon, I ween, His rude expression and untutoi'd air. Beyond the povier of language will unfold ' The form of beauty smiling at his heart, How lovely, how commanding!" — " Heaven, In every breast hath sown these early seeds Of luve and admiration." ' In the one case our peasant feels, and correctly feels, an admiration, ' which, unskilled in metaphysics, he cannot vindicate ; in the other he ' knows the truth, but unskilled in logic, he can neither state nor de- ' fend the reasons of it.' If this analogy Is sound, It seems to lead to the principle of election or choice. It might be unbecoming to urge all that presses on my own mind against the soundness of such views, to which, indeed, I must again advert. 191 The practical point is — can this be taken as a safe ground for legisla tion ? Can you entrust the whole congregations throughout Scotland, with the power of absolute rejection of every man who does not please them on this assumption of the just perception of the truth among the class to whom Dr. Chalmers exclusively refers ? It does look as if Dr Chalmers here confounded together two things widely different. Most of the expressions In the above passages, (which follow each other In the speech), are very applicable to the Instantaneous conviction often produced on the mind of the unlettered, the simple, and the Ignorant, as well as on the mind of the careless and the hardened, by the preaching of the Word. But are they accurate in stating, as a general characteristic of human nature — so general that it may be acted upon as the sure foundation of great ecclesiastical changes — the exist ence of the love of the truth — of the desire to have it faithfully preached — of the perfect discrimination between sound and defective preaching, leading always to a preference to the former, the preference of substance over show — and of the disposition to receive with humility the truth, without which no such discrimination and preference can be formed ? From the adaptation of the gospel to the nature of man, and ' the ' response which it finds in the deepest recesses of the moral nature' of those who had treated the preaching of the cross as foolishness, and believed themselves protected against its Influence, we have indeed ample evidence of its divine origin ; and thus it is that the haughtiest scoffer, as well as the most ignorant, are often brought to an acknow ledgment of the truth, producing conviction, though the mind may shake off the impression — and proving by that internal evidence the truth of the gospel doctrines, whether men receive them or not. But the strain of reasoning seems to me inapplicable to the subject to which it is by Dr. Chalmers directed. A love of the truth — so general and strong as to be a practical and predominant rule of conduct — is a very different matter from the ac knowledgment in the mind of the truth to which Dr. Chalmers refers ; and accurate and sound knowledge of the truth, of which the individual can yet Impart no evidence to his Church, Is also another and widely different matter. Is the Church to act upon the assumed existence of such a love of the truth .'' Is the Church to rely on that accurate knowledge of the truth .'' when in the case in which it is required to rely upon the existence of both, it has no evidence whatever of the opinions, views, motives, and knowledge of its hearers ! Is the Church to admit that such an investigation is beyond Its pro vince, and that it Is to take both the love of the truth and the know ledge of the truth among Its hearers on trust ? There is enough of truth in this view of human nature, and of the response to the truth which will be made by that nature on the part of those who cannot indeed explain how it is that the truth so pene trates through all their self-delusions and refuges, to impart :o the Church every encouragement for the performance of its great duty — of preaching the gospel to all men : — Although I doubt if the truth is very accurately illustrated by the reference to the perception of natural 192 beauty in the passage of Akenside. But to commit to the people the power to elect, or to sit in judgment upon, their spiritual guides on such a theory, seems utterly inconsistent with the duty of faithful dealing with their hearers, without which the objects of the Establishment are not accomplished. In fact, that which Is claimed for the people, is a style and manner of preaching which may please the particular congregation to whom the pre sentee Is proposed — supposing that their rejection is never to proceed upon any other and less definable grounds than this. But an acceptable style of preaching, a mode which may please a congregation on hearing a per son once or twice, is a very different thing from ' a demand for a pure ' gospel,' ' not preaching the gospel,' ' that the doctrine preached does ' not give footl for the nourishment of the soul' Soundness of doctrine — a sound evangelical mode oi preaching the gospel, are very different things from a style or a manner of preaching which may not at first please, and may not at first be liked. On the former, it is too much to say, that the objections of the people cannot be made intelligible to their spiritual instructors, or that the Church is not the fitting and proper judge for all classes, high and low, rich and poor, equally. I cannot think that the Church is to surrender its province, as the instructors and guides of their congregations, on these, of all others, the most im portant points. The preservation of soundness of doctrine — the forma tion and adoption of a sound evangelical mode of preaching the Word of God, are the very matters on which the Church specially should de termine for the guid:!nce of their licentiates, so as to make them wholly independent of popular opinion, and should lead and direct and decide for the people belonging to the Church, especially the people of an Established Church. If the perception and di.scernment of the truth is acquired, through the blessing of God, so generally by the 'home-bred peasantry' of the country, under the culture of the Church, that they can at once detect the absence of the truth in the presentee whom they are to hear preach, is it to be maintained that the members of Presbytery have not as generally the same discernment and perception and love of the truth ; or that the objection which the people justly feel to the dlsquallficarions of the preacher in point of doctrine and mode of preaching the gospel, cannot be understood by the clergymen of the Church, which has so happily cultivated the religious feelings of the country .-• Of the style which is to please and be taking, the Presbytery cannot judge certainly for others — whether the latter are peers or peasantry. But it is a very different matter, indeed, to say that the voice of numbers is to prevall,so as to reject a man, — not becausehis doctrine is not sound, — not . because his mode of preaching is not most sound, — not because he is not able, sincere, pious, and fervent In his love of the truth, but because his style of preaching does not happen to please. To admit that, on such a ground, (supposing it to be the ground) the people are to have a right to reject, is not to claim for them the right to judge of soundness of doc trine, or of soundness of preaching, — but to say that they must also be 193 phased, that the style, the taste of the preacher must be acceptable to them ; in other words, on such views they ought to have the right of selection. And all the arguments of Dr. Chalmers on this point, in proposing the Veto in 1833, if sound, and if satisfactory to the Church, ought to be an answer to the first part of that speech in defence of ^ patronage. If the people must be pleased clearly they ought to choose. The opponents of patronage, who alone are consistent in all this dis cussion, say that they ought to have the choice. That is intelligible. But such a view Dr. Chalmers disclaims ; and the professed object and prin ciple of the Veto maintains the principle of patronage. But if it is intended to claim for the people solely a right to judge of soundness of doctrine and of preaching, where Is the difficulty of the Church judging of these matters, when stated to them, for the people, high or low, rich or poor, — aye, of judging them, not only soundly, but for their good, and for their edification, better than any of these classes can judge for themselves .'' And if that is all that is claimed, then to surrender the power of judgment on such matters, is clearly giving up one of the most Important duties and functions of Presbytery. I say nothing at present of the important objection, that, to give, with out restriction, a right of rejection, because the people ought to be pleased whether with the style of preaching, or with doctrine, and, therefore, that the Church ought not to Inquire into their reasons, is to entrust them with - a power of rejection which they may exercise not merely on good grounds, but on the most objectionable, the most unscriptural grounds, — for the exercise of the power is not to be inquired into or reviewed. Whether it is fitting for the Church, to such an extent, to give up its power of judg ment, merely because, in some cases, the rejection may be on good and sufficient grounds, is surely well deserving of consideration by those who profess not to claim for the people the right to choose. But how it can be denied to be a surrender of the functions of Presbytery, it is diffi cult to understand. It is quite essential to come to a correct understanding of the state of the question, in considering the points raised by the resolution of the Assembly. If the power of choice is not claimed for the people, — if they have no right in the abstract, to say, we must be pleased, — if, as Dr. Chalmers argues, they are well able to judge of soundness of doctrine and sound ness of preaching, — if it is to secure these results that the will of the people must be consulted and referred to, — if the point is not merely, Whether a man is pleasing to them, but whether he Is a sound evan gelical preacher, how can it be necessary, for that object, to say that the , objection should not he stated to and judged of by the Church ? There Is, in truth, no ground of objection so easily stated, — none so palpable — none of the validity of which the Church is so well entitled to judge, — none on which the Church is so well qualified to enter into and un derstand the objections which may be stated to them, — none surely which the Church ought so peculiarly to decide upon for the good of the 194 people under their charge, of whom they are the spiritual guides and instructors. If, in many cases — the Veto Law and Dr. Chalmers assume in all — the people are so well conversant in, and so well able to discern, scrip tural truth, as to distinguish at once the preacher who speaks to them in the spirit of the gospel, it Is indeed strange that such a people should be totally unable of stating the simple objection, that the presentee does not so preach. It is in vain to say that this is an objection which cannot be stated. It is the simplest of all. True, if the people must be pleased, — if the mere fact that the people do not like the individual, is a ground for rejection, then they need not be asked for their reasons. But surely it is better at once to say this plainly, and openly to maintain that they should choose their pastor, than put the matter on such a footing. Considering the objection to which the Veto act, on this ground, is exposed, let us try it by the way the Church has dealt with the ques tion, — What shall be done when the Presbytery is, jure devoluto, itself to present, owing to the patron having lost, from any cause, his right for that turn ? By the original regulations of 1834, it was provided, that the Veto should not be allowed to be exercised in that event against the presentee appointed by the Presbytery. And why ? plainly for this reason, that the Presbytery were held to be the proper judges of qualifications and fitness, for the good of the people. It is true, this regulation afforded an unanswerable proof that there was no such fundamental principle or law, as the right on the part of the people to reject without assigning any reasons, — for it is very plain, that the person chosen by the Pres bytery might happen to be, in point of fact, just as unacceptable to the people as one chosen by the original patron. And when the force of this remark was felt in the course of the argument in the Auchter arder Cksc, — when this was felt to be an unanswerable reply to the assertion, that a peremptory right of rejection was a fundamental law of the Church, it was then proposed, by the Assembly of 1838, in a new set of regulations, to admit the Veto in this case also. So curiously elastic and pliable is this fundamental law of a ])eremptory right of re jection, that it can be restrained or enlarged, exactly as suits the conve nience of the arguments of the day. The exclusion of the Veto in the case of a presentation by the Presbytery was originally most keenly in sisted in by its advocates in the Assembly. But when, in the course of the argument in the Auchterarder cause, the force of the remark was felt by all, that its exclusion in that case was a proof, both that there was no absolute right on the part of the people to reject, and that the Church itself did not acknowledge any such right, then the regu lation was altered, in a new interim scheme of these rules, and it was proposed that the people should be allowed to veto even the person presented by the Presbytery jure devoluto. But this proposal, I un derstand, has not yet received the assent of the majority of Presbyteries in the Church, and, It is to be hoped, never may. Now, take this point either way. The original plan of the Veto ex- 195 eluded the right to reject the person presented by the Presbytery. I apprehend no other ground for this could be assigned, than the sound Presbyterian doctrine, that the Presbytery is the judge of qualifications and fitness, and hence, when they selected, the Church held that it was absurd to say that the people could reject the person whom the Church selected as the best for their spiritual interests. In this the Assembly were right. To be sure it shewed that the supposed fundamental law did not exist. But still in principle they were here clearly right. If, again, even in this case, the people are to reject, is not this a plain proof that the person selected is submitted by the Church according to the prin ciple of the Veto, to the judgment and approval of the people, since here they do directly pronounce on the very .selection for the particular charge which the Church has made ? But the people are only exercising the same power in the very same manner as when the presentee of the pa tron is submitted to them. Hence this case is a clear proof that the Veto is wholly irreconcilable with the function and duty of theChurch to decide on all questions as to qualifications. Doubtless, if the Veto is to rest on the ground, that the people are, as Dr. Chalmers says, patrons; and hence that the people must be pleased, that is, must concur in the original selection, that principle strikes against the Presbytery presentation as much as against the ori ginal patron's. But that is a doctrine that one-half of the supporters of the Veto disclaim, and that leads necessarily, on principle, to popular election ; for how, in that view, can patronage, that is, the right to se lect by one man, be defended. If the whole congregation, or communi cants, have a right, (which in point of principle must on that view be paramount to the right of selection), to be satisfied with the choice ? In that view, the right clearly leads to the principle of popular election. The question respecting the Veto by the people in the case of a pre sentation by the Presbytery, is a point of great importance in consider ing the principle of the scheme. If a rejection by the people is to infer a forfeiture of the patrons right, for which the Church now stands out, (and which is indeed a part of the plan, upon the assumption, that acceptableness is qualifica tion), it is plain, that in most cases, if the patron chooses to exercise his nominal right of selection, the presentation will by the Veto be thrown in to the hands of the Presbytery. The question then will often occur. But it is not chiefly on that account, viz. that the Presbytery will often present, that I look to this question as an important point in the argument. It appears to involve the consideration of principles which very seriously affect the whole plan. So far as one can ascertain the principles upon which the scheme of a Veto on nomination by the people (apart from all questions as to compe tency) is based, it rests either upon the doctrine, that their concurrence in and assent to the choice of their pastor, and their right to dissent is part of their Christian privileges and rights as members of the Church of Christ, and essential in order to secure their interest in the work of the ministry, or that it is necessary, for the success of the ministry, ' for the Christian good of the people,' that they should feel and be 196 satisfied that they are to be edified and benefited by the individual, be tween whom and themselves it is proposed to constitute the pastoral re lation ; that Chrisrianity is a religion ' the assenting testimony to which, ' as an object of instant discernment, might issue from the deep recesses ' of their moral nature on the part of men, with whom it is a felt reality,' but who could not state why it Is so in the case of one preacher, and why not in the case of another, — and hence, that to provide for this import ant and universal principle, which must be observed in the economy of any system of ministry, the people must have the right to reject, without inquiry as to their reasons or feelings upon the subject, because the mat ter may not be capable of explanation at all. Now, on either of these views, it is quite immaterial whether the selection is to be made by the patron or by the Presbytery. The mo tives directing the selection may be most excellent, nay, the choice also may be a very good one — quite unexceptionable — still, if the people do not consent to the choice, or if they think they are not be edified — if this assenting testimony is not felt in ' the deep recesses of their moral ' nature' to the doctrine preached, — in short, in either view of the mat ter, it would be a violation of their privileges, or against ' their Chris- ' tian good,' that they should not have the power to reject the individual. The selection by the Presbytery could not, in any degree, secure against the fact, that the individual might not so preach as, in the feeling and opinion of the people, to edify them. Hence, upon either view of this scheme or principle, (viz. that the people should have a veto on the nomination of the person intended to be their pastor), it necessarily follows, that they ought to possess it just as»much when the Presbytery present as when a patron presents. But observe the vast difference in principle. In the latter case, dis guise the matter as you please, the plan, in substance, and, we know, in practical operation, is to give the people their choice, and to destroy pa tronage. This is its recommendation with many of the advocates of the recent measures of the Assembly. And this is in truth the only answer which can be given to the objection which Dr. Muir has so authorita tively urged in last Assembly. The Veto secures a choice to the peo ple, and therefore the case is the same, so far as respects the Church Courts, it may be argued, as if the people at once elected. But none of its advocates take this ground of defence; or will admit (what is how ever the recommendation of the Veto to many of them) that it does ne cessarily lead to popular election. But in the other case, the Church — the spiritual instructors and guides of the people, select an individual for the particular charge — and then the people sit in judgment upon the choice of the Presbytery, and may reject the very person whom the latter have specially chosen as, in their knowledge and experience of him, eminently qualified for that parish. If that result is excluded in the case of a presentation by the Pres bytery, — ^if it is thought that it would be a scandal utterly derogatory to the dignity of the Church, and totally subversive both of the func tions of the Church, and' its relation to the Hearers of the Word, the ground upon which the Veto is in this case excluded, must be, as I 197 have stated, the doctrine that the Church is both qualified and bound to decide on the question of qualification and fitness, and cannot admit of a final judgment by the people, the reasons of which the Church is not even to be permitted to know. But on that view, the evils of, and the objections in principle to, the acknowledgment of the will of the people as conclusive, and excluding the right of the Church to inquire and judge, are the same, whether a patron or the Presbytery select. If, on the other hand, the Veto is to be allowed even as against the selection and choice of the Presbytery, and if the people may equally put their Veto on any one whom the Presbytery chooses, how can it be denied that the principle of the Veto does deprive Presbyteries of one of their most sacred functions, and that in all cases the scheme of the Veto does submit the person, selected by those who have the right to select, to the judgment of the people for approval or rejection ? Such a scheme appears to be opposed to every sound view which can be taken of the authority and functions of a Church, and most assured ly is subversive of the authority and jurisdiction of Presbyteries. It was not mere matter of arbitrary and indifferent arrangement by the Legislature when Collation was given by statute to the Established Church. The Legislature might of course have taken a different view of the matter, but they would have framed a scheme of a Church incon sistent with many of the most important religious views connected with the principle of any Establishment. And on this important point the Legislature of Scotland from the first took but one view of the subject. One of the first acts of Parliament, after the Reformation, was to de clare that the trial and admission of ministers should be in the power of the Church — the presentation being declared to remain with patrons. And when Presbytery was established in 1592, it was declared in the words already quoted, that presentations were to be directed to Presby teries, with full powers to give collation thereupon. Thus the Legislature from the first acknowledged, that the trial and admission of the persons to whom the cure of souls should be entrusted, must reside in the Church — not, certainly, as an Immaterial matter in the ecclesiastical arrangements of an Established Church, but as a point of high and sacred principle, which it was necessary to observe for the interests of religion. Now, however, in every case in which the Veto is to be exercised, the person selected is by the Church submitted to the judgment and will of the people; and if the people reject, the Church, (which as yet has never tried the person), can know nothing further of him, for they can not inquire what are the reasons or notions of their people — that is a matter beyond the province of the Church ! They cannot judge of their reasons. The mere will op the people is conclusive against the Church — and that will, exercised in rejecting the per son presented, is acknowledged by the Church to be paramount, infalli ble, and irresponsible, — for it is the Church which gives the people this absolute and irresponsible power. 198 The distinction is great between such a plan in a Dissenting, and in an Established, Church, embracing every parochial minister in the kingdom. Among such bodies as the former, much must be sacrificed in order to keep up and maintain their peculiar congregations. These conces sions may even form a bond of union among themselves, as distinguish ing them from the Establishment, and tend to keep up, in their case, the influence of the minister so approved of, to whom it is optional with them to adhere or not. If they do not, in the opinion of the members, answer in practice, they can be altered at pleasure. The minister of a private dissenting congregation has no status in the coun try : He has no legal jurisdiction : He has no authority in any case, (however he may be chosen), except what it is voluntary on the part of the hearers to admit. Others are not called upon to regard the clergy of such associations as invested with any public authority or status. They are only known by individuals as members of the clerical profes sion. The collective clergy of such a body have no status or place in the country, — have no direct influence over the feelings of the country respecting the Church at large. Their authority aud influence over their hearers is not one of the public arrangements of the social system designed to affect national character and to promote the interests of re ligion. It is wholly an accident in society. Their body may be small, almost unknown, except to the members of the persuasion. Public opinion does not look to them — is not regulated or influenced by them in any perceptible degree ; and, at all events, if the result is, from any cause, injurious, the evil cannot be avoided, -^for their system cannot be interfered with or regulated. But the authority of the Established Church in public estimation — the relative position of the Established Church in regard to influence and authority over its hearers — is one of the most important of all mat ters which can find place in the economy of the social system. The in terests of religion may greatly depend upon the manner in which the proper authority of the Established Church, In its relation to the peo ple as their instructors and teachers, is preserved and maintained. But the result, to which I am now requesting your attention, appears to be wholly irreconcilable with the maintenance of that relation, and with the preservation of the authority and influence of that Church, which shall submit to the will and rejection of the Hearers of the Word, as a paramount, irreversible, and irresponsible decision, which it Is be yond the province and functions of the Church to consider, the qualifi cations of the persons whom the Church alone ought to try in regard to their fitness for the charge of the people. 2. This line of observation leads me to the second great ecclesiastical objection to this measure, viz. that it wholly destroys the proper rela tion of the Church to the people under them, in so far as it acknow ledges, in the opinion, and by the admission of the Church, the Hearers 199 of the Word to be qualified judges of their instructors and teachers in holy things, and thereby diminishes the authority of the Church over its people, and Impairs the docility and disposition to receive the word of truth from Its ministers, which is the most important point in na tional character for an establishment to promote. This has always appeared to me to be one of the gravest and most serious objections to the scheme, both in point of principle and practical consequences. It is one of the strongest objections. Indeed, to popular election, as well as to the plan of leaving the religious teachers of a coun try to be supplied on the Voluntary principle. But the objection ap plies in substance and principle even more directly and more strongly to the Veto, or any similar measure, sanctioned by an Established Church, as the proper position in which the Hearers of the Word should stand to their Teachers. The principle of the Veto is this : — The right of patronage or pre sentation being left untouched — being adhered to professedly as in it self right, and to be continued, the Church, by whom the presentees are to be tried and admitted, declare that they think the opinion and will of the people ought to be satisfied, and that it is right and fitting and necessary for the ' Christian good of the people' — for the success and efficacy of a gospel ministry among them — that the individual shall in the first instance be tried, judged of and approved of by the people. In the exercise of a power of rejection which, the Church say, the people have, or ought to have, without controul or check. The character of the position which the Church mean that the peo ple shall occupy in the exercise of the Veto, and the nature of the right of judgment implied in the Veto, is most explicitly and candidly ex plained by Mr. Candlish, in his speech in the Commission in August, which I have already quoted. The real nature of the case is at once and most openly stated by him. The Veto is then a declaration by the Church, that the majority of their hearers are, in the first instance, the best judges of the persons fitted to be their religious instructors, and that their decision, in the event at least of rejection, should be final and conclusive. Disguise it as its advocates may, this is the practical effect of the declaration of the Church. I object to the measure, because such a declaration, untrue as it re gards the hearers to whom it is addressed, is inconsistent with the rela tive position of a Christian church to the people under its superintend ence, and practically most injurious, alike to the authority of the Church and its pastors, and to the minds and character of the people under their charge. It may be very well for those who avowedly wish to abolish patron age, or who advocate the Voluntary principle, to treat as comparatively unimportant this view of the subject. But as yet we are not dealing with either of these opinions. According to the measure proposed to the Government, (so far as It contains any definite proposal), patronage is to subsist as an unquestionable right, and as the constitutional arrange ment for the selection and nomination of presentees. But the Church declares, that the persons presented ought to be sub- 200 milled to congregations for their approval and judgment, as, in the first instance, the best qualified to judge who are fit to be their spiritual pas tors, and that rejection by the people shall be final. It is most material to keep the exact state of the question before the mind. We are not discussing the propriety and fitness of this latitude of judgment, when a person is to select for himself the church to which he is to belong; or, if he lives in a great city, where there are a number of clergymen, the propriety of leaving to every one to select the preacher whom he likes best. The right of conscience decides the former of these points ; the arrangements of society equally determine the latter. But it is the principle which is to be recognized, viz. that the Established Church, which is instituted for society at large, and for all who do not choose to occupy the situation of Dissenters, shall declare and hold the whole people,* necessarily under their care and superintendence, to be the best qualified, in the first instance, to decide on the qualifications of their intended pastor, — so that he must be submitted to their judg ment, — and that their rejection, simply by a peremptory dissent, ought to be final ; because, as they are the best judges oi the pastor who will edify and instruct them, they ought not to be called on to give an account to the Church of the reasons for their supreme decision. Is this a sound estimate on scriptural grounds, of the character of the Hearers of the Word, on which the Church is entitled to act ? Is it for the good of the people and consistent with Bible truth, that the Church should proclaim, that in every case the majority of each congregation, or each roll of communicants, do possess the qualifications, — are actu ated by the temper of mind, — governed by the principles which render them the proper judges of the fitness and qualifications of the indivi dual who is to be appointed to the ministry and cure of souls in each charge, so that in all the parishes of the kingdom, equally and univer sally, without reference to the circumstances and character and know ledge and opinions of any congregation, the right to Veto is to prevail and take effect on every roll of communicants. If such is indeed the state of the knowledge and love of the Truth among the whole concrre- ga'tlons of all the parishes in Scotland, town and country, manufactur ing and agricultural, so as to make this a safe and true estimate of them on which to commit to them this irresponsible power, what an ar