\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<Tument
against Interfering with that system of providing for the ministers and
teachers of the word, which, under the blessing of God, must have been
mainly instrumental in producing this high standard at once of Chris
tian knowledge and pious feeling.
* I use the term ' people' here, as it is used both in the Veto law
itself, and in all the speeches on the subject, without recurring in each
sentence to the distinction drawn between male heads of families and
other communicants, or the rest of the congregation. In point of fact,
the presentee is practically submitted to the congregation at large ; for
it is needless to repeat that the judgment and determination of the con
gregation at large will, in almost every instance, decide the decision of
the majority of the male heads of families.
201
Dr. Chalmers says, — All sound philosophy supports the conclusion
that there may be many decided and just repugnancies in the mind of
illiterate but Christian men, of which they are unable to give any ac
count. I should wish to see the Veto defended on grounds consistent
with scriptural views of human nature, and with the estimate the
Church takes, and is bound to take, of the characters and dispositions
of men. I do not admire the analogy which Dr. Chalmers draws
between the vague perception of natural beauty in the mind of unculti
vated men, ' unable to assign the philosophy of taste,' and the ' dlscern-
' ment of the gospel,' ' the just perception of truth,' even though that
discernment of the gospel is supposed to be peculiar to a ' home-bred
' peasantry.' I believe that universal experience in every rank equally testifies that
the truth is unpalatable to human nature ; — and that the nature of man,
— corrupt, averse to and at enmity with the truth, prone to errors and
heresies from the very corruption of his nature, anxious in many cases
for the style of preaching which will fortify him in his own delusions, —
often glad, amid the innumerable influences of the Tempter on the heart,
to resort to a style of preaching which gives only the most fervent views of
justification by faith, without dwelling adequately on the practical vices
which sanctification must gradually correct and eradicate out of the cor
rupt heart ; — is not fit to be trusted with the task of decision on the
qualifications of the spiritual instructors of the whole congregations in
the country.
We are discussing, be it remembered, on what estimate of human na
ture it is safe to legislate for the whole country — what estimate of human
nature is the Church entitled, 'm faithfully dealing with the people under
their care, to put forth, when she is to propose the arrangements on
which the selection of their teachers and guides is to depend. We are
not to look to the characters of individuals, or the characters often met
with in classes of persons : or that still may mark many country con
gregations. The point is, — On what estimate of human nature ought
the Church to proceed in dealing with the people at large under their
care ?
In the course of his evidence before the Patronage Committee in
1834, when it was pressed upon Lord Moncreiff, in consequence of the
earnest and strong opinion which he had given against the proposals for
abolishing the law of patronage, by some member of the Committee,
why the communicants should not be allowed to choose their ministers,
when they were entrusted with political franchises of the highest import
ance,'* He said most justly, — ' I am most decidedly of opinion that the
' things are totally diverse and separate, and that the principles which
' apply to the one cannOt with any justice be applied to the other at all. I
' stated the reason of this before. A minister is not appointed to represent
Patronage Evidence, p. 215.
202
' the wishes or the views, the private interests or the opinions, of the peo-
' pie, as a Member of Parliament is to a certain degree; but, on the con-
' trary, he is appointed for the purpose of directing the people and in-
' structing the people as to what they shall think, and what they shall do
' for their best interests, in time and through eternity. That is a very
' different function from the function of a Member of Parliament, who
' comes into Parliament to represent the particular views and interests
' of the constituents who elect him, or at least to contribute to represent
' the whole views and interests of the people at large.'
And In another place, he says, ' And I am humbly, but very decided-
' ly of opinion, that under any definition of that mode of appointment,'
(popular election), ' which I have yet heard, it would be full of dan-
' ger to the best interests, and perhaps to the existence of the Church of
' Scotland. In the first place, I think that it is altogether wrong in
' principle. We cannot transfer to this peculiar and very sacred sub-
' ject, rules or principles, which may be sound and right, and which I
' may think to be sound and right in mere matters of civil politics. A
' man who is to be appointed a minister of religion for a particular pa-
' rish is not to be placed there to represent the opinions or the interests
' or the views of the persons over whom he is set as a minister : Quite
' the reverse ; he is placed there, under the sanctions of the most solemn
' oaths, to teach the people what they ought to think, and what they
' ought to do.'
In these remarks there is much practical wisdom, and there is also
that sound estimate of human nature on which alone any Christian
church is warranted to deal with the people under their charge.
No doubt Lord Moncreiff thought that these considerations did not
apply to the scheme of submitting to the judgment of the congregation
the Individual named by the presentation. And among other reasons,
very much from the persuasion, which had taken great bold of his mind,
and which he distinctly expressed, — that the power contained in the
right of Veto, would be seldom called into action, — that the people
would be slow to dissent, and, still more, would seldom, if ever, exercise
power indirectly to attain the selection or choice, — that the knowledge
that such a power existed, would operate favourably on the selection by
patrons, and that that would be all the effect of It, except in rare cases,
and all that we should hear of it ! If the scheme leads directly, as I
shall afterwards show, to popular election, or to a choice out of a list of
candidates, then the remarks I have now quoted apply to theVeto scheme.
And, in principle, in practical truth, it is most manifest that the reasons
which he states apply to a judgment upon the individuals submitted to the
opinion of the communicants, just as much as if they are also to select.
What is the view which the Church takes of the relative position of
those ' who are to preach the word of God,' and of those ' who hear
' the word preached ?'
It is emphatically said in the Larger Catechism, (Ans. 159.)
' They that are called to labour in the ministry of the word are to
' preach sound doctrine diligently, in season and out of season ; plain-
203
« ly, not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration
' of the Spirit and of power; faithfully, making known the whole
* counsel of God ; wisely, applying themselves to the necessities and
' capacities of the hearers ; zealously, with fervent love to God and the
' souls of his people ; sincerely aiming at his glory and their conver-
' sion, edification, and salvation.' And again — (Ans. 160,) ' It is re-
' quired of those that hear the word prfeached, that they attend to it
' with diligence, preparation, and prayer ; examine what they hear by
' the scriptures, receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readi-
* ness of mind, as the word of God ; meditate and confer of it ; hide it
' in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.'
It is impossible for the people to estimate too highly the authority
with which the truth is preached to them. It is true they are to re
ceive it not as the word of men, and are not to ascribe any power or
efficacy to those who preach the word : But they are to receive it ' with
' all readiness of mind.' And the suitable disposition of mind cannot ex
ist, if those who are to be instructed and warned and reproved are
taught by the Church to look on themselves as qualified to sit in judg
ment, and receive from the Church, or possess as part of their Christian
privileges, the right to decide, on the gifts and qualifications of those
who are educated and set apart to be their spiritual instructors, so to
be entitled to reject without review all whom they do not like.
And when all the varied characters of the congregations, of all the
churches throughout the country, are considered, it does seem to me to
be a grievous error to hold them all up as qualified in the opinion of the
Church, so to decide on the qualifications and fitness of their pastors,
and to recognise such a decision as a fitting and right procedure In a
scriptural church.
One difference there is, and not unimportant, between the state of
the national Church and Dissenting congregations. These are not, gene
rally speaking, formed so much by the accident of birth, residence, &c.,
as the congregations of the Established Church. A large proportion
often are men decidedly of religious character, making their choice in
manhood or mature life, of the persuasion to which they choose to be
long. It does not follow that it is for their good to choose their spiri
tual pastors, — and we know to what restraints that choice has been
in many of these bodies wisely subjected. But still it is to be remem
bered that the congregations of the Establishment, and the rolls of the
communicants of the same, embrace, necessarily, even a far greater
variety of human characters : — So many belong to these congregations
from the effects of birth and residence in the parish, — from resort to
the Established Church in early life, — from the influence of and de
ference to the opinions of others, — from the feeling of respectability and
decorum in life which communion with the Established Church carries
with it, and from the sort of status thereby acquired in the neighbour--
hood in which the party lives.
The Veto law assumes that the majority of every such congregation
or roll of communicants are, in every case, the best judges, in the first
204
instance, of their spiritual guides, qualified to decide on the fitness of
the person who should be placed over them, and are, in all instances,
to be guided solely by motives of which the Church can approve.
Dr. Chalmers has already indicated his distrust of the estimate of
human nature, which, in the fervour of declamation, his poetical genius
has so eloquently painted, and has proposed. In the calmer considera
tion of the subject, which passed through his mind in the short inter
val between the Assembly and the publication of his speech, limitations
of the Veto, which, in truth, give up the most important point in the
question, — exactly as, in 1833, he provided even a more general and
important proviso, in order to enable the Presbytery to ascertain if the
rejection truly proceeded on any objections personal to the presentee.
But the whole view of the Veto is false, if this estimate of humau
nature, and of its just discernment, and perception, and innate love of
gospel truth, is not true, — true on the views which the Scriptures take
of human nature, — true, as a practical and safe guide in the determina
tion of ministerial qualifications and fitness, — true as an universal rule on
which to found the laws of an Established Church for the whole country.
If any limitations on the right to reject are necessary, — if inquiry in
to the grounds of rejection must be allowed, in order to disallow votes
not truly founded on good objections to the individuals, — then the whole
foundation of the theory on which the plan proceeds is false and falla
cious, the estimate of human nature untrue and unsafe, — and on the
very acknowledgment contained both in Dr. Chalmers's motion in 1833,
and in the Note to his recent Speech, the proper position for the people
ought to be that of objectors, and of the Church on all points and to
all effects that of judges, — and the only judges of the qualifications of
those to whom the spiritual charge of cures is to be entrusted. The
proposal also of the limitations or restrictions stated by Dr. Chalmers Is
a complete answer to the first part of his Note, where he tries to make
out that the patron and the people together share the presentation. In
that case, all that the Presbytery would have to do, would be to reject
unfit persons ; but until the parties agreed, they would have nothing to
say as to individuals proposed by either party. But the patron's pre
sentation does necessarily bestow a right, — that right Dr. Chalmers
thinks it is most hazardous to allow the people to defeat by a rejection,
the grounds of which the Church may not, when necessary, inquire into
and decide upon ; that is, review the judgment of the people. Hence,
it is plain that the Veto is an exercise of a power of judgment on the
qualifications of those who are to enter the ministry. The people can
not pass any man Into the ministry whom the Presbytery may reject ;
that is true : But they conclusively reject all whom they choose to
Veto, — and if the only redress is to inquire into the grounds of the re
jection by a process before the Presbytery, then it is only the more
plain that in principle, (what is plain to the common apprehension of
men,) the power of judgment is by the Veto abandoned by the Presby
tery, and committed to the people, when no power of review is vested in
the Presbytery.
Is the picture which Dr. Chalmers's genius has drawn of human na-
205
ture, sound in philosophy, sound in Christian doctrine ? Is he warrant
ed in maintaining that the Church ought, on that estimate, to commit
the power in question to the congregations of the Church ? If not — and
he plainly distrusts, after all, its soundness, — of what avail for practical
ends are such analogies between the untutored perception of natural
beauty, and the perception of gospel truth ? Is it in the natural,
the uninstructed, the unregenerate mind of man, that this discernment
of the gospel is found ? No one has more powerfully pressed the oppo
site view of gospel truth than Dr. Chalmers. The analogy, then, be
tween the perception of natural beauty and of gospel truth is not sound.
This discernment of gospel truth may be found, and so Dr. Chalmers
must mean, among those who are acquainted with its truths — well
taught in its doctrines — and fully able, therefore, to state so simple an
objection as defect in doctrine. But the prevalent love of the truth is
a very different matter. I believe it would be safer to trust the congre
gations with the original right of selection ; for, in that case, talent —
great and powerful talent, will often prevail, — the risk of false doctrine,
and of an erroneous style of preaching, is less, where talent is devoted
to the study, — and both are always better known to and more easily as
certained by the Presbytery in regard to a young man of talent. But
the risk of rejection of a faithful sincere preacher, of one well fitted to
correct the unfortunate effects of previous defects and errors in the
preaching and ministrations of the former incumbent, — to bring down
spiritual pride, when that has been long and fatally encouraged, — to
break in upon indifference and worldly-mindedness, when these have
been fostered into a fatal security, from which many do not wish to be
uncomfortably roused, — the rejection, in short, of the person well qua
lified and well fitted (in the opinion even of the Presbytery) for the
very charge in question, — of a person well adapted to meet and encoun
ter the very peculiarities and faults and characters of the congregation
to which he may have been named, — is one which is pre-eminently run
in the operation of the Veto, just because human nature is corrupt, and
at enmity with the word of God.
To legislate for the congregations of the Established Church through
out the country, on an opposite estimate and view of human nature,
appears (I say so with the utmost respect) to be a fatal error on the part
of the Church, which is to instruct and improve and enlighten and
warn their Hearers, in the character, and with the authority, of the
ambassadors of the gospel, and under the sanction of its sacred truths.
Can the Church admit that the majority of each roll of commu
nicants, being male heads of families (they are taken as represent
ing the will of the congregatioH), are fitted to be entrusted with the
province of judgment on the qualifications and fitness of their pastors?
That a decision made by numbers is so generally to be right and
sound, proceeding on Christian motives and sound views and love of
the truth, that the judgment of the majority is to be taken and declared
by the Church to be satisfactory and conclusive, without the right of
inquiry, or the power of appeal ? I cannot think that the Established
Church can declare that such a rule proceeds on a true and Scriptural
206
view of human nature, — a view which, the most ordinary experience tells
us, would be a most unsafe and unsatisfactory ground for the determina
tion of such a matter. Such a declaration seems to be inconsistent with
the truths which the Church is bound to tell their hearers, whether
agreeable to them or not.
Dr. Chalmers, in justifying the view he takes of the fitness of man
kind for such a decision, speaks of the ' unlettered men of a rustic con-
' gregation,' — ' of a home-bred peasantry,' and forgets how many congre
gations are not of that character. I will grant to him — sincerely admit
to him — that a congregation of a proper country parish, well instruct
ed in the truths of the gospel, — the grave, steady, pious peasantry of a
rural parish in Scotland, will in some cases be better qualified for the
exercise of the power he wishes to commit to every congregation, than
many congregations wholly of the upper ranks. I cordially admit this.
But granting this most fully, I believe the estimate of human nature is
most unsound and unsafe as to any congregation, and entrusts to them a
power which, for their own good, and for the good of the Church, they
ought not to enjoy. To go farther, — to hold that the peasantry of Scot
land, in other words, the whole lower orders throughout the country, — for
the question relates to a plan applicable to the whole country, — are fitted
for this high and sacred function, seems to me to apply to them the most
pernicious flattei'y, and a stimulant to the greatest spiritual pride. It
is ' the honest demand of the common people for a pure gospel,' which
Dr. Chalmers thinks ought to be conclusive for entrusting them with
the power of rejection, and In his speech he does not admit that the voice
of the people-can ever be other than such a demand. But can the Church
declare that the will of the congregation is always the honest demand for
a pure gospel ? If that were so, the object of the gospel ministry would
indeed be far advanced already among the people of the country.
Dr. Chalmers, in his last speech, following up the train of obser
vations already quoted, says, ' I would take the verdict of a congrega-
' tion, just as I take the verdict of a jury, without reasons. Their
' judgment is what I want, not the grounds of their judgment. Give
' me the aggregate will ; and tell me only that it is founded on the ag-
' gregate conscience of a people, who love their Bibles, and to whom
' the preaching of the cross is precious ; and to the expression of that
' will, to the voice of the collective mind of that people, not as sitting in
' judgment on the minor insignlficancies of mode and circumstance, and
' things of external observation, but as sitting in judgment on the great
' subject matter of the truth as it is In Jesus — to such a voice coming in
' the spirit, and with the desires of moral earnestness from such a peo-
' pie, I for one would yield the profoundest reverence.' All this sup
posed, and few will not be disposed to bow with reverence, in the Indi
vidual case, to one of the most authoritative expressions of human
opinion and will — because founded solely upon the knowledge and the
love of the truth in the highest degree in which they can exist — and
with the influence of every extraneous consideration completely ex
cluded. It is this view of a congregation which the advocates of an
absolute right of Veto always depict, and particularly of a pious con-
o
207
gregation supposed to be chiefly of the lower classes, and of a rustic
congregation. But the Church proposes to legislate for all classes,
and it adopts a principle which is to include all. It is to legislate
too, for all the congregations of the country, among many of whom
there may be hardly any of the home-bred peasantry, not one trace of
a rustic congregation. It really will not do, in defending the Veto, to
draw an ideal picture of such a congregation as a pious and ardent mi
nister loves to delineate, the purity of whose motives, and the fervour of
whose devotional feelings he paints with all the warmth which such a
delineation may call forth. There may exist such congregations. I
fully believe it. But who is , to guarantee even that fact .-' And who,
above all, is to guarantee the certainty that different motives will not
operate, when the people are to exercise a power so well fitted to dis
turb the purity of motive, and to engender very different feelings ?
The truth is, that all these grounds for defending the Veto are ma
nifestly unsound — at variance with experience, and with the estimate of
man which the gospel compels us to take.
The only consistent ground is that which Dr. Chalmers professes to
disclaim, viz. that the right to reject the Intended minister, in other
words, the necessity of their consent In order to form the pastoral rela
tion, is part of the rights and privileges of the people in the Church of
Christ, as a distinct body from the ministers, to whom, as the people in
the Church, the power and responsible duty of trying the spirits is com
mitted, and as to whose fitness for the duty it is not the province of
the Church to inquire, for the privilege belongs to them by gift from the
Divine Founder of the Church.
That view of the case avoids all the difficulties to which the argument
of Dr. Chalmers is exposed. But it seems impossible, on any ground
of experience or Scriptural truth, to maintain either that the whole
hearers of the word have such a love for the truth, that they may be
safely trusted with the irresponsible power of deciding in the first in
stance on the qualifications of their spiritual guides, and hence that it is
quite superfluous to inquire into, or for the Church to review, the grounds
and motives of their decision ; or, on the other hand, that the discern
ment and love of the truth is a matter of such just and certain percep
tion In the mind, that it may be compared to the perception of natural
beauty by the untutored mind, and the reasons therefore for the decision
may he those, which the individual cannot himself explain, and which
the Church should not investigate. Either view seems a singular esti
mate for a Church to take of the hearers of the word.
In 1833, in bringing forward the first scheme of the Veto, Dr.
Chalmers in defending patronage, and in exposing ' the delusion that
' our Church is necessarily to become more Christian by the constitution
' oi it becoming more popular,""* went on to say, with his usual power,
' I do not ,gee how the one is an unfailing corollary to the other, or how
Speeches, 1833, Appendix, p. 4.
208
' you are to get quit of the evils incidental, I fear, to all sorts of human
' patronage, merely by multiplying the number of human patrons.
' Multiplication, I ever understood, told only on the amount of the
' things to which it was applied, and not upon the character or kind of
' them. It results in a greater number of apples, but has no power to
' change them into apricots. Now, my fear is, that, if utterly power-
' less for the transmutation of fruit, it is just as powerless for the trans-
' mutation of humanity. Our arithmetical reformers, who look to this
' mere arithmetic of theirs for the revival of our Church, are looking, I
' fear, to the wrong quarter for our coming regeneration. They but ex-
' change one human confidence for another, placing it on a broader and
' more extended basis than before, but still on a basis of earthllness. It
' is a confidence which I cannot share In, nor do I comprehend how It
' is, that, with minds so firmly, so undoubtingly made up, they count on
' a mere enlargement of the ecclesiastical franchise as the high road to
' the spiritual enlargement of the Church, to the increase and mighty
' resurrection of its vital godliness.'
And, again, after alluding to the state of many congregations and separ
ate Churches, which had fallen into much error and practical ungodliness
with the ' grand panacea of Popular Election,'* he continued, — ' But I
' hold it a far more serious inadvertency than this, that so many of my
' best friends should be looking, and with an anticipation quite unwa-
' vering and unclouded, to a sort of latter-day glory, and that on the step-
' ping-stone of a mere constitutional reform, — a transference of power
' from the patrons to the people, or from one portion of our depraved
' human nature to another. Let them have a care, in all this unquaillng
' confidence of theirs, lest they should become unmindful of the rock
' whence both patrons and people are hewn, lest they should be forget-
' ting their orthodoxy and forgetting their Bibles.
' This does not supersede the question of the best constitution for
' the appointment of ministers to parishes, while it may help, I do
' think, to remove an obscuration which rests upon it. The truth is,
' that a prevalent error on all the sides of the controversy respecting the
' better and the worse systems of patronage, is, that we are perpetually
' imagining a corrupt exercise of the power in the party with whom
' our antagonists are for vesting it ; while we overlook the equal possl-
' bility of a corrupt exercise in the party with whom we are for vesting
« it ourselves. The enemies of the present system have constantly pre-
' sent to their minds the Idea of a reckless and unprincipled patron, a
' case which has been too often verified. When, in mitigation of the
' evil, it is alleged that the Church have the power — the unlimited
' power, as I think — of rejecting the presentee ; this is met by the
' conception of a Presbytery or a General Assembly, actuated by a
' haughty contempt for the popular taste, even when that taste is in
' unison with all that is most characteristic and peculiar in the gospel
' of Jesus Christ ; and this certainly is a case which may also be verl-
L. C. p. 5.
209
fied. Well, then, to make good our escape from these polluted quar
ters, let us suppose this power, both in the patron and the Church, to
be done away, and an authority paramount to either vested in the
suffrages of the people, is it now, I would ask, that every man of
Christian integrity, or even of common observation, — Is it now that
we shall have found a secure asylum for the cause of truth and piety,
in a region of ethereal purity, of Incorrupt and heaven-born principle !
I speak not of popular ignorance ; but I speak of the wrong and the
wayward influences which might so easily be brought to bear on the
popular will. I speak of their extreme facility to the solicitations of
interested applicants, or urgent and interested advisers ; and of the
wildfire rapidity wherewith a petition, borne from house to house, and
prosecuted with address and activity through a parish, might obtain a
majority of signatures. It Is very true, there might be, and often is,
a graceless patron, and it is just as true that there might be a grace
less Presbytery ; but I would ask the advocates of universal suffrage,
if there be no chance or possibility whatever, when their panacea comes
to be applied, that the appointment of a minister may fall into the
hands of a graceless population .'' But, apart from their want of
grace, and with a much higher respect for the popular understanding
than, I believe, is generally entertained, I do apprehend them ex
ceedingly liable to be precipitated or betrayed into an unfortunate
appointment through downright gullability, insomuch, that the so-
called popular election might just resolve itself into the oligarchy of
a few, or perhaps into the sovereign and directing will of but one in
dividual. A people occupied with labour, not in circumstances for a
leisurely and comprehensive and complete view of all the parts of a
subject ; withal, open to sudden impulses, and to be overborne by the
influence of candidates, and the friends of candidates, are exceedingly
apt to make a wrong outset, and irrecoverably commit themselves to
an unfortunate choice. I should not anticipate a good series of ap
pointments by laying the first step in the choice of ministers upon the
congregation, — the way, I do think, to begin with anarchy, and to
end in virtual patronage. I think there Is good reason why, in every
instance, there should, whether express or Implied, be a gregarious
consent ; but, in no instance, I apprehend, is it good that the initial
movement should be a gregarious one.'
This is severe, but it is not an overcharged description. But, can it
really be said, that those so unfit to be trusted with the power of selec
tion, can yet be considered in the eye of the Church, and in the light of
scriptural truth, as infallible in rejection and disapproval; — that their
capacity to judge of the person submitted to them will be sure, sound,
safe, and unerring, to the extent, at least, of warranting the Church to
commit to them a final power of rejection, when we are told that they
are so utterly unfit to judge of the man, who offers himself, and whom
they propose to select : — that all the materials of hasty and unthinking
opinion, or of unjust and wayward impressions which unfit for choice,
disappear the moment the Church submits an individual to the opinion
of the parish. This seems to me to be inconceivable on any view of hu-
210
man nature. Of course it follows, on Dr. Chalmers's own showing, that
if the Veto leads to popular selection, or to a choice out of a list of
candidates, and thus operates in the way in which its framers did not
anticipate or intend, the measure is then exposed to all the objections
so powerfully urged by Dr. Chalmers against popular election.
In contrast with the views which Dr. Chalmers presents of the qua
lifications of the people for exercising the power committed to them, I
may here quote the very important testimony of the venerable Professor
of Divinity at Glasgow, long a minister first in a country, and then In
a town parish, who has been always a decided opponent of patronage,
and is one of the most distinguished ornaments of the ' popular party'
in the Church — of the Church itself
Dr. M'Gill had another plan, viz. of abolishing patronage, and of
requiring a call, combining, with that, the means of giving proper
weight to the wishes of the more educated and intelligent portion of the
parish, and of those who had a permanent interest in the parish. The
Veto he opposed in 1833, although compelled to differ from those with
whom he generally acted, and in explaining his grounds of objection to
the Patronage Committee in 1834, the following important remarks
occur on the qualifications of communicants, and the propriety of
entrusting to the mass of communicants indiscriminately this Import
ant privilege. To those who know Dr. M'Gill's amiable, kind, and
benevolent character, and the consistency with which for half a century
he has maintained the old opinions of the popular side of the Church,
the remarks I am to quote will convey impressively how strong the
conviction of the impropriety of the measure must have been on his
mind, before he would have brought out the view he states.
' Or let us suppose that they choose to exercise the Veto which is
' proposed ; we have to consider to whom that important right is com-
' mitted ; they are the communicants of the congregation in one gene-
' ral mass. Now, according to my opinion, this is giving to the la-
' bouring classes the whole power of rejecting the minister ; and being
' exercised without the obligation of stating reasons, may be exercised
' in a manner very injurious to the other classes of the congregation,
' with whom, from their permanent residence, the minister must be
' most lastingly connected. This I think both unjust, and not the mode
' most favourable to the best interests either of the particular parish, or
' generally of the Church and the clergy. And I am convinced, from
' my knowledge of the character of the people in the district where I
' reside, that it is in vain to think that they are to be satisfied with the
' idea of a negative call. They will use their Veto very soon, and they
' will use it sometimes in a way, I fear, not calculated to promote tran-
' quilllty. I conceive that to place the Veto in the majority of the com-
' municants, voting in cumulo, is unwise in another point of view; the
' qualifications that fit a man to be a communicant do not seem to me
' to fit a person ior judging of the qualfications of a minister. I con-
' ceive, though I may be mistaken, but such are my views, and which
' I have always acted upon, that where I see a serious mind, a person
' convinced of sin, and willing to accept of the Saviour, and submit
211
' himself to him, and to the dispensation of grace for the restoration and
' recovery of man, I am not entitled to insist on great qualifications of
' knowledge or of talent, or that they should answer me as a scholar
' would answer me, — they are babes in Christ, should be treated with
' tenderness and affection, and are entitled to be received into the com-
' munion of the Church. Other circumstances are to be taken into ac-
' count when we fix on the best mode of choosing a minister, than the
' qualification of being a communicant ; and I am of opinion, that the
' old way of making separate columns, one for heritors, another for elders,
' another for the heads of families, which was the mode of the Church
' of Scotland, was the best, and should not be departed from. This is a
' new mode that has been proposed, by which the decision depends on
' mere numbers. I think this is unjust, because it does not give to each
' party in a parish and in a congregation their proper influence. I
' think that there is a vast difference between the situation of men
' who are residing constantly with their families in a parish where they
' have dwelt from their Infancy, and where their children also will re-
' side, and those, however worthy they may be, who have seats in the
' Church for a couple of years,* and then may go away to another part
' of the country, such persons are not interested in the choice of a mi-
' nister to the same degree that the stated permanent residenters of a
' parish are. Besides, taking the matter in a more general view, I hold
' it to be the most unwise thing in the world not to introduce the heri-
' tors to a considerable degree of influence. If you throw out the bet-
« ter educated class from having any connexion with the choice of a mi-
' nlster, the consequence will be, that they will take no interest in the
' Church of Scotland, that they will build chapels for themselves, and
' will leave the Church, that they may have ministers qualified accord-
' ing to their own taste.'-f-
Some member of the Committee on a subsequent day put a question
which seemed to taunt him with the opinion that the Christian attain
ments of the communicants were Insufficient for the enjoyment of such
a privilege. The venerable and kind father of the Church shrunk
from that abrupt statement, but conveyed his objection even more for
cibly in his supplementary answer.
2184. ' I did not mean to say that they were not fitted for the en-
' joyment of such a privilege : but that one class, namely, the labour-
' ing class, as must be the case if the majority of communicants alone
' have the power, ought not to monopolize that right. Now they have
' their good qualities, but they have their prejudices and their imper-
' fections. On the other hand, if you divide them into classes, as I
' proposed, you bring into operation the better educated classes, and
« they have their natural and proper influence. I meant also to say,
' that the qualifications necessary to become a communicant will not en-
' sure all the qualifications necessary to the best election of a minister.'
* Having been in communion two years, it will be remembered,
was proposed by Dr. Chalmers in 1833.
f Rev. Stevenson Macgill, p. 302. o
212
Unsound and untrue as the estimate of human nature is on which
the Vfeto proceeds, I apprehend that the effect of the measure will be
to unfit the people still more for the function proposed to be assigned
to them in the Church.
The Church is to declare that such is the amount of sound doctrine
— of Christian principles — of the love of the truth — of freedom from
the influence of all other motives among their congregations, that they
ought to sit in judgment on the qualifications and fitness of their spi
ritual guides.
Now the experience of all similar measures proves, that such mea
sures on the part of the Church will create among the people (and I
here mean, the Hearers of the Church universally, for no faith can
be placed in the superiority of the Christian character of any class,
high or low, all equally requiring to be taught and instructed in the
things in which the wisdom of man availeth not) great spiritual pride,
— an overweening estimate of their own attainments and progress in
religion, — an assumption of superiority over, or at least of equality with,
their spiritual instructors, which Is utterly inconsistent with the relation
of pastor and people, and most Injuriously opposed to the docility
of mind, with which the truth ought to be received as the Word of
God, without reference to the mental attainments of the hearer or the
speaker. The disposition of man is not too prone at present to
submit to the teaching of the Church, coming, as that instruction
does, from fellow-men. All know well how prone we are to think
of the talent and attainments of the individual preacher, before we
are disposed to listen to the truth, though faithfully and seasonably and
earnestly spoken. That is one great hinderance to the meek and
docile reception of the truth. And surely that is not a disposition
of mind to foster and Increase in the hearers generally of any church.
But to submit every proposed pastor, by the decision of the Church,
to the judgment and approval of the hearers of the word, is the very
way to invert the true relation between pastor and people, and to give
the Church's sanction to a most false and delusive estimate of the Chris
tian dispositions and tempers of men. There has been much, as it
is, in the history of the Scottish Church, tending to encourage among
us spiritual pride, and an undue notion of our superior and purer
love of the truth, because our ancestors adhered to it through so much
of discouragement, trouble, and persecution. Personal improvement of
the truth is happily more the duty of modern times. Let us not tend
to create or increase that tendency to spiritual pride, which is one of the
most fatal causes of obstruction to the influence of the truth on the
heart, by a measure founded on an estimate of man, the very reverse of
that which it is the Church's duty to impress.
When the practical effect of the Veto is pointed out, and when it is
seen that it leads very generally to a variety of candidates being sent to
preach to the people, in order that the latter may choose from among
these competitors for their favour the individual who pleases them best,
your Lordship will perceive how general and pernicious will be the
operation of the measure upon national character.
213
To degrade and vulgarize the appointment of the ministers of the
gospel, by making it in any way the subject of popular decision,
whether in original selection, or of judgment on the person presented,
seems to he a most fatal mistake on the part of the Church. The error
seems to be great Indeed in reference to the relative state of Church and
people, even If we could look to such a measure as the Veto in the ab
stract, and without regard to the circumstances which. In practice, must
frequently accompany and characterize its exercise. In the present days
of popular choice for all secular situations — of strife — of contention and
agitation, — to teach men to turn from the hustings of the political or
municipal election one day, to a Veto on their spiritual teacher the next,
or, (as the measure practically brings about), to a popular choice and
election out of a number of candidates,— to accustom them to view the
decision of numbers as the paramount and absolute ground, equally for
rejecting the political and the clerical candidate, — to teach them to re
gard their rights In respect of numbers and of personal judgment, as
of equal weight, and as much to be regarded, in the regulation of the
affairs of the Church and the qualifications of their pastors, Is to expose
the authority of the Church to the Influence of the feelings and passions
which it ought to controul and eradicate, — and to give in these. Its
most Important practical arrangements, an opening for the consequences
of the strife and contention, of the spirit of license, of insubordination
and disorder, which are abroad.
In a populous parish — with a mixed population — of all kinds of occu
pations, pursuits, and stations of life — to call for the dissents on a roll
of many hundreds, with the influence of the rest of the congregation
actively exerted — with all the solicitations by the candidate or his friends
— and, still more, the effects of the canvass or caballing of those op
posing him, and hoping to obtain interest for another, will be at
tended with most of the evils of a popular canvass. If, on the other
hand, instead of a selection by the patron, he is compelled, as has
been frequently the case, to leave the selection to the people, these evils
are of course Increased. Dr. Chalmers, in the note to his speech already
quoted, describes scenes which have notoriously occurred. But the
sources and elements of strife, so emphatically described by Dr. Chalmers
in regard to popular election, will often break out and operate. In regard to
the vote which the parish is to pass on the nominee of the patron. To
be sure Dr. Chalmers persuaded himself in 1833, that 'those village
' demagogues, the spokesmen and oracles of a parish, whose voice is
' fain for war, that In the heat and hubbub of a parochial effervescence,
' they might stir up the element they love to breathe in,' will be silenced
by the plan of the presentation being made by a patron, and submitted
by the Church to the people for their judgment. But in truth the
field seems to be as open for their activity and mischief under the
scheme of the Veto, — the provocation to such activity and agitation
even greater, if the people are not allowed their choice, and are yet de
sired to pass judgment, as the party who must be pleased, on the nomi
nee of the patron. And in 1839, after five years' experience, and with
cases too notorious to be disregarded, Dr. Chalmers seems, from the Note
214
already quoted, toliavelost confidence in this sanguine expectation, that
such coarse elements of effervescence were never to appear after the
scheme of the Veto. According to all analogy, we are warranted to be
lieve that the system of the Veto will engender a worse spirit than if
the people were left to choose for themselves; and that so soon as the
Veto becomes a settled and fixed law, and the people come generally to
understand the power thereby committed to them, — the very power given
to the people will create feelings of opposition to patronage, and causes
of dissatisfaction with presentees, which may be incalculably injurious
to the interests and authority of the Church.
The communication of a great popular right to a numerous body,
— whose qualifications for the trust are by that measure fully admitted,
but accompanied with great restrictions, for which there is no warrant
in that estimate of their qualifications on which the measure proceeds —
always must create great dissatisfaction. ' If we may judge, why may we
' not select ? Why should we be fettered by the selection of any patron ?
' We ought not to be so treated. We are allowed to reject whom we
' please, and are not to give an account of our reasons ; and the patron's
* man we will not have. Then we will compel them to give us the man
« we want.' Such is the natural effect of half measures in conceding po
pular rights; and we shall see proofs how the proposed measure has
worked in this way.
Dr. Chalmers, in the note already referred to, alludes to the proba
bility of occurrences taking place, of which in 1833 he had wished to
banish the prospect ; and of the state of the parish during a vacancy
being marked with the canvassing of a popular election. That these
things must often occur is very plain. Some licentiate or other will
generally have the means of acquiring influence in a vacant parish ; if
none with the patron, he will not be the less disposed to court support
which may lead, in the first place, to the rejection of the presentee, and
ultimately it may be to the compulsory selection of himself either by the
patron or Presbytery (if the Veto Is to apply even to them.) And if
the patron, viewing his patronage when so controlled as no longer of
value, and as imposing no responsibility on himself, gives the people a
list to choose from, then we have all the caballing and intrigues of a po
pular canvass, of which Dr. Chalmers entertains so just an abhorrence.
But these consequences will appear more serious, when we look to
the necessary effect of such a system on the characters of the licentiates
of the Church. When the measure was first proposed in 1833, this
objection was powerfully urged by Dr. Forbes, one of the professors at
Aberdeen, a clergyman of the Church, and as well acquainted perhaps
with a large portion of the licentiates of the Church, with their circum
stances, and the causes which may affect their views, as any man in
Scotland. ' He would recall the attention of the House to the effect it would
' have on the licentiates, and consequently the ministers, of the Church.
' If they took men to be men, they would acknowledge that from the
moment a student entered the Divinity Hall, his great object was to con-
215
' sider how he was to succeed in the profession he had chosen, and how
' he was best to secure a situation where he could exercise the acquire-
' ments he was endeavouring to become possessed of. This was the
' plain consequence that must tempt the mind of every young gentle-
' man that entered the Divinity Hall. He would not be understood to
' say that many well-minded young men would not resist this feeling ;
' but it was the frailty of human nature that all of them were too much
' tempted by the desire of popularity. They all desired to be well
' thought of, and to gain the applause, not only of the good and con-
' sclentious, but of mankind in general ; and it was difficult for them
' to draw the line between the applause of those whom they ought, and
' those whom they ought not to esteem ; and the strong temptation of
' popularity presented itself to every young man, from the time he be-
' gan his studies. This, no doubt, was a temptation which some of
' these young men would resist, but he apprehended many of them
' would become its victims ; and the consequence was, that if a man
' should once give way to the desire of popularity, to be a lover more
' of the applause of man, than a lover of the approbation of God ; if he
' varied in his public appearance as a preacher, from what were the con-
' vlctlons of his own mind, he would go a little farther ; and if he ac-
' customed himself to such a practice for one six months, however er-
' roneous might be the views he had taken up for popularity, he would
' end in believing them with the fullest confidence — like a man who,
' from having frequently told a story which he knew to be a He, would
' work himself into the belief of it by frequency of telling it. He would
' beg to go a little farther. What would be the plain consequences as
' to such a man, when he had got a settlement ? He would be inducted
' as a popular clergyman. It was not the clergy who were at all times
* the originators of heresy ; it oftentimes arose among the people ; and
' such clergy as those to whom he was alluding were often led away, not
' by the convictions of their own mind, but by the feelings of those who
' were inferior to them in all sorts of acquirements. He referred them
' to a case that came before them not long ago. It was not the clergy-
' man, but a weak woman, that led the way in the heresy to which he
' alluded, and which ended in the deposition of the minister of Row.'*
There is very remarkable and impressive testimony to the necessary
operation of these causes on the minds of probationers, borne in the evi
dence of one of the very ablest and most decided advocates of the Veto.
In the spring of 1834, in the evidence before the Patronage Commit
tee, the Veto was strongly advocated by Dr. Simpson of Klrknewton.
Along with Lord Moncreiff and others, he did not believe that it would
lead to any popular selection, or that the people would use their power
so as to enforce any choice, — and, on the other hand, he objected to
any system which would give the people a choice on the ground, among
others, of the inevitable effect of such a general system on the style of
preaching, and other objects which licentiates would propose to them-
Speeches, 1833, p. 103.
216
selves, in other to obtain popular favour. I believe it will be admitted
to me, that there Is not a member of the Church better qualified, both
from experience, talents, knowledge of human character, and from the
opportunities of observation attending his peculiar situation as one of-
the clerks of Assembly, than Dr. Simpson, to judge of the effects of
such a measure as a choice or ' election by communicants,' on which
his opinion was asked, on the character and views of licentiates.
' 935. What would be its effects on the character of the Church .?
I think its effects would be to lower the respectability and deteriorate
the character of the ministers of the Church ; we should have an in
ferior style of qualification and accomplishment, studied and culti
vated. I think our young men would then be led to attend with un
due regard and anxiety to those acquirements and accommodations
by which they might court the people who elect them.
' 936. What would be its effects in leading to unworthy and disin
genuous means to obtain appointments .'' I have no doubt that it
would lead to unworthy and disingenuous means to obtain appoint
ments. Considering the ordinary principles of human nature, 1 think
no man, whose living depends upon the choice of the people, can al
most avoid resorting, more or less, to little artifices and appliances,
and accommodations to their tastes and their prejudices, which would
be equally injurious in their effects upon his own character, and upon
the right and independent exercise of the ministerial function. As
illustrative of this, I may mention a case that came under my own
observation : the election was given to the people : a very respectable
young man, one of the candidates, asked my opinion and advice as to
how he should conduct his trial appearance ; what should be the sub
ject, and what some other characteristics of the sermons he should
preach, &c. It is well known that in Scotland there is a strong pre
dilection in favour of spoken, over read sermons ; and this young man
having been accustomed sometimes to read, and sometimes to speak,
asked me the question, " Do you think that I should read, or that I
' should deliver my sermon .''" I answered, " Supposing you were to
' succeed in the present object of your ambition, are you resolved and
' prepared to continue to speak your sermons .''" " No," said he, " for
' I do not think I would be able to do that." " Then," said I, " most
' certainly do that only upon your trial which you are able, and mean
' to do, in the general conduct of your ministry, if you succeed." The
young man, 1 have said, I believe to be a respectable person ; but, in
point of fact, as I afterwards learned, he went and delivered his ser
mon : he did not read it.
' 937. Was he appointed .' He was not appointed. I mention this
as an example of one of those little yieldings of high and honourable
principle — one of those little accommodations, to which I think popu
lar election strongly leads. I have known cases where a man, having
spoken his sermons when a candidate, and having ceased to do so when
he became parish minister, thereby injured himself in more ways than
one in the estimation of his people.'
217
And again, — ' 1029. Do you consider that the character of thecom-
« municants in Scotland is not of a stamp high enough that they may
' be held to be as good judges of wlio shall be the pastor to be placed
' over them as the lay patron under the present system ? — I think it
' the most delicate way of answering this, to appeal to my own feelings.
' If I were a probationer, and in want of a church, and if the election
' depended entirely upon the people, even as the question has described
' them, I would be under strong temptation, I am fully satisfied, to
' suit my preaching and my conduct generally to them in such a way
< as I think would not be beneficial either to the character of the
' Church, or to the good, ultimately, of the people themselves. I have
' no doubt that the kind of qualifications which are apt very frequently
' in a trial sermon, to captivate a general audience, are not the qualifi-
' cations altogether which make the most useful clergymen. I am quite
' willing to admit, to a certain extent, that a clergyman should have
' popular qualities ; but I think the kind of popular qualities which
* would in many cases attract, in an election of this kind, are not the
' most valuable and important in the character, and with reference to
' the peculiar functions of a minister.
' 1030. Do you consider, if a candidate for a parish should preach
' the high and recognised doctrine of the Confession of Faith, that such
' preaching would be acceptable, or otherwise, to the commuuieants of
' Scotland at the present time .'' — I have not a doubt that what we call
• sound orthodox preaching, which I hold to be at present the style of
* preaching in Scotland, is popular and acceptable to the people there.
' 1031. What is the style of preaching to which you allude when
' you say that the communicants in Scotland would be in the risk of
• getting from candidates in the way of popular election ? I would
' just say that it was a showy attractive style of preaching. Every
• one knows what are the eccentric qualities of manner and address,
' and all the little appliances which attract the multitude in a trial ex-
* hibition ; and assuredly these are not always found to be the accom-
' paniments of the more substantial qualities, either of orthodoxy, or
' sound sense and judgment. What I mean is this, that while ortho-
' doxy is per se undoubtedly highly prized by our people, it may well
' happen, that of two men quite equal in this respect, the one shall, on
' account of mere extrinsicals, be very popular, and the other, on ac^
' count of the want of them, very much the reverse. I might have
' put the case even more strongly. I have known myself, and I may
* mention it in illustration of this point, many young men, extremely
' popular preachers, who, I should say, were exceedingly inferior, in
' reference to every high qualification which goes to make an able and
' accomplished minister of the gospel, and an efficient overseer of the
^ spiritual interests of a parish ; and this fact seems to be noways in-
' consistent with the general intelligence of our people, and their just
' appreciation of ministerial merit, when full time and opportunity are
' given to judge.'
Two circumstances may be alluded to in passing, which tbese ques
tions and answers suggest.
218
In England it may not be generally known that there remairfs in
many parts of Scotland a strong prejudice in favour of sermons which
the preacher does not read, or of which the copy is not lying before him.
There is a sort of undefined impression and belief, when he does not
read, that the sermon is an extemporaneous effusion, marking greater
talent, and the result of the gift of the moment, while the fact gene
rally is, that the composition is, with great labour, and at an infinite loss
of time, committed to heart, having been either all previously written,
or the product of many a weary hour of unprofitable rehearsal. Yet
the prejudice on the subject is still in many parts of Scotland strong;
and no one can doubt, that it will both influence rejections and decide
selection among candidates.
This is a matter which forcibly illustrates Dr. M'Gill's remarks : —
Such a ground of rejection or of selection would be most unjust, unsa
tisfactory, and imperfect. It would influence only the lower class of
society; and thus, as Dr. M'Gill says, undue weight would be given
to their prejudices and opinions on a matter on which the intelligence
of other classes ought to have greater influence and effect.
One of the questions put to Dr. Simpson contains one of the favourite
arguments in support equally of the Veto and of popular election. Are
not the Christian attainments of the communicants equal to those of
patrons ? — omitting, as Lord Moncreiff in his evidence, and Dr. Chal
mers in his speech in 1833, point out so forcibly, — the elements of
responsibility thrown on the individual who is to select — the certainty
of caballing and party heats — the arts which will be resorted to in or-i
der to obtain interest — the practices which will be resorted to by candi
dates themselves to ensure favour — and all the methods which will be
taken to work upon, as Dr. Chalmers somewhere terms it, the guUabi^
lity of the multitude.
That these predictions were not unwarrantable, short as the time has
been, there has been already evidence sufficient to force itself on any at
tentive observer. Many hearers will concur In the remark that there
has been rapidly taken up by probationers a much more ambitious,
ornate, and flowery style of language for town congregations, and in
the country, in many instances, a style little calculated to convey sound
instruction, tending often to foster spiritual pride among the lower classes,
and substituting for faithful dealing a very enthusiastic style of address.
But the fact is proved in another and most distressing matter.
That this ordeal of the Veto, with all the sacrifices which may often
be made in order to escape the stigma of rejection with its grievous
consequences, must be most galling and irksome and revolting to many
minds — perhaps only the more qualified for the ministry, on account of
the very feelings which render such a mode of trial repugnant and odious
to them — cannot be doubted. To a pious, modest, sensitive mind, look
ing to the blessing of God for direction and support in the exercise of the
sacred profession for which he is intended — to the great objects of the
ministry for the only earthly reward to which he should aspire — firmly
impressed with tlje great authority of the commission which he hopes
219
to receive from the Church, and of the entire independence of the opi
nions and caprice and fancies and favours of men with which that com
mission must be executed, and knowing that in these motives, and in
the blessing of his great Master, he will have strength for duty, autho
rity for instruction, and weight and force of preaching, of which in any
other pursuit his character is incapable — the notion of being submitted
to the judgment of numbers in the congregation, on one or two ser
mons which he is to be set up to preach for their approval, carries with
it circumstances equally degrading to himself, and revolting to all his
views of thfe functions of the holy ministry. The necessity of such an
ordeal must tend to deter many of those, who are the best qualified for
the Church, from entering on a profession involving an ordeal so repug
nant to them, even if they hope to escape the ruin and utter depression
which rejection may for life inflict.
What has been the result ? The decrease in the number of divini
ty students has been so great, as already to attract the attention of the ^
Church. The numbers have fallen off, it was stated in the last As
sembly, one-half; while the situations in the Church had been, it was
said, doubled, at all events greatly increased. These facts were brought
forward in detail, not by the opponents of the Veto, but by a Synod,
the majority of which are decidedly favourable to that measure, or even
go further, for the purpose of proposing means for encouraging a greater
number of young men to come forward for the clerical profession. Dr.
Chalmers represented the alarm as exaggerated: and the facts may
have been strongly put, although regular tables, the accuracy of which
was not impeached, were given in proof of the statements. But one of
the keenest supporters of the present measures. Professor Brown of
Aberdeen, replied, that Dr. Chalmers's calculations were founded on
the wants of the Church some years ago, and were not" applicable to
the increased number of situations in the Church, and that the fact of
great decrease was proved by the tables beyond question. Accordingly,
a measure was actually carried, to propose that the Presbyteries should
try to institute bursaries and give other encouragements, in order to ob
tain an adequate number of divinity students for the supply of the
Church. To what is this decrease attributable ? Other causes, I doubt not,
co-operated : But that many intended for the Church have resolved not
to enter on a profession in which they are unexpectedly to encounter
such a measure as the Veto, and may have their whole prospects in
life so cruelly, and, it may be, so unjustly blasted, and their profes
sional prospects destroyed without trial or judgment by the Church
which is to educate and train and prepare them for the ministry, cannot
be doubted. In the experience of private life many must have encoun
tered this fact, as well as myself.
I do not doubt, however, that in time, the demand will bring forward
again sufficient numbers; but that a proportion of those the most qualified
by character and temper and disposition for the office of the ministry, will
be always deterred from exposing themselves to the injustice and stigma
220
of the Veto, is what experience leads us to expect. And that a class
of probationers will be gradually formed, hardened to such an ordeal
and preparing themselves to obtain situations in the Church in the way,
which they find most available In ordinary secular cases ; and on the
characters and views of many of whom a most undesirable change will be
wrought ; — we may believe, with Dr. Forbes, will be an inevitable re
sult of the measure.
In what way is the judgment of the people to be formed ?
The presentee, who may not be previously known to the parish, is to
he appointed to preach once — or the Presbytery may if they choose ap
point him to preach oftener, provided that the last occasion be not
later than six weeks after the presentation is sustained, (and the re
quisite forms will really seldom admit of his preaching more than twice,
even if the Presbytery choose to allow the second opportunity) : On
such opportunity of judging of the presentee the judgment of the con
gregation Is to be given.
Can any one say that an opinion so formed ought to be conclusive
— barring the right of the Church to judge and decide for itself.'' How
little can the ministerial qualifications be really judged of by any con
gregation on one or even two sermons ? Want of talent — of sound doc
trine — of just views of duty, may be often seen certainly on slight oppor
tunities, if we suppose the sermons to be a fair estimate of the individual's
talents and opinions. But these are matters which may be easily stated
to the Presbytery, and of which they can more fully judge. But as to
whether a man of talent and learning, of piety and scriptural views, is
to be a useful preacher — to be ultimately one fitted for the regular in
struction of the parish — how Is it possible that one or two opportunities
can ever enable the people satisfactorily and definitely to decide, so as to
render peremptory rejection, proceeding on a first impression (liable to
be affected by so many extraneous circumstances), a safe power to com
mit to them ? The effect of such a trial, — of putting the individual up
to preach one or two trial sermons for the purpose of pleasing and sa
tisfying the people, — will, with many minds, lead to the selection, on
such an occasion, of one or two topics easily handled, and as to which
the style and views likely to please may be known from the expe
rience of others ; and thus a most false system of looking to the views
and tastes, and even the very errors prevalent in the country, may be
promoted and encouraged. With many minds, minds of the highest
class too, the dislike of such an ordeal may lead to very opposite re
sults ; they may be led to preach sermons, perhaps very different from
the ordinary exertions of their minds — selecting purposely, topics the
least likely to be popular or taking, for the purpose of asserting
their independence of the opinion of the people, — and many may
suffer from that cause. Nervousness — the inability to bring the mind
to bear upon the important topics of pulpit instruction, either in prayer
or sermons, when , oppressed with the notion of being on a trial, is
so cruelly distressing, and so degrading to the station in which the indi-
221
vidual stands, that it may wholly incapacitate some minds from any
great and vigorous, or natural, exertion of thought ; — such may suffer
from that cause. There are many, again, of the most valuable minis
ters, whose powers of preaching may not be estimated highly on a first
trial, and who, in the event of a popular vote, have but little chance in
competition with preachers of a more imposing and popular character,
and yet whom we know to be most excellent preachers for all the great
objects of pulpit instruction.
Preaching seems to be the most difficult attainment of the human
mind, if we may compare the success, in this exertion of mind, of the
most pious and earnest, with the talent and mental vigour which
they can display on any other subject. The improvement of the
talent must come, probably in all instances, from the actual experiences
and labours of a ministerial life — from the knowledge of human nature,
the views of mental doubts, of prevailing temptations, of the most fre
quent hlnderances to practical piety which may be thereby acquired.
The right preaching of the word is not the sure result of the prepa
ration and solitary mental labour of the student. Hence early suc
cess is often not followed by future improvement and usefulness, in pro
portion to what is found in others whose promise was at first less,
though the zeal and labour and anxiety of the former may have been
as ardent and unremitting, and the views and sense of duty as sound
and faithful.
The ground of condemnation, supposing it to proceed on an honest
opinion, is therefore Imperfect, unsafe, altogether insufficient to secure
the object which the people themselves have in view, but still more in
sufficient to exclude the judgment of the Presbytery, formed on fuller
trials, on better knowledge of the man, with larger experience, greater
wisdom, deeper learning, juster views of the objects of the ministry,
and sounder estimate of the ministerial gifts.
In the very valuable and instructive evidence of Lord Moncreiff be
fore the Patronage Committee, there are some most important remarks
upon this part of the subject, in explaining his objections to any plan
of giving the selection to the communicants out of a list to be proposed
to them. It appears to me that every word is even more applicable to
the plan that the Church shall submit the individual named to the judg
ment of the same body, to be tried and rejected by them on the test of
one, or, at the utmost, two sermons. And if, as will be seen, the effect
of the Veto has In many cases been to compel the patrons to adopt
this course of giving the people a list of candidates out of which to
choose, every word in the following remarks tells against the Veto.
He said, ' But perhaps the more intrinsic ground of objection to any
' popular election of a minister lies in the danger of an improper se-
' lection being made at the first. If the thing is to be done in this
' way, the electors must act very often upon very hasty and imperfect
' knowledge. The common way is, that some individuals, one of whom
' it is supposed they are likely to fix on, are Invited to preach once, or
* perhaps twice. They may know little more concerning them, and
' then they are to determine which of one, two, or more persons they
222
' prefer. This, I imagine, is but a narrow means of selection ; and
' without supposing that in any great number of instances there would
' be unfaithfulness in the gentlemen put forth as candidates, yet we can
' certainly suppose the case that individuals might preach in a particu-
' lar manner, which was not according to their ordinary habits of think-
' ing or writing, or even according to the principles by which they in-
' tended to be guided in future. The sermons preached might not even
' be of their own composition, and where there is so little means of the
' history or character of an individual being precisely known by all the
' individuals residing in a remote country parish in Scotland, I think
' that there might be In many Instances great danger of their fixing on
' a man hastily on probable grounds, at a moment when they were al-
' together misled and deceived. The man may.be defective on other
' points that did not appear, and are not involved in any such test as
' merely preaching on one or two occasions ; he may be defective in the
' power or the will to administer to the wants of the people in private,
' or defective in the learning necessary for a man placed in such a si-
' tuation, or in other circumstances, upon which it would not be plea-
' sant and is not necessary to dwell, and into which the common people
' of a parish might have no means of duly inquiring.'*
Let it be remembered, that a number of the circumstances, which
may produce hasty and erroneous selection and preference, may also
produce false impressions and defective judgment, leading to injurious
rejection, in the case of a single individual being submitted for approval
on a trial sermon.
Indeed, so Imperfect are the opportunities of judging, that the Veto
is in truth a miserable protection against the risk of ultimate dissatis
faction — which is the object to be secured by the plan. The remarks
of Dr. Simpson most profoundly shew how easily individuals may pass
muster on such a trial, with great eclat, too, whose qualifications as
preachers (independently of other deficiencies), may ultimately give
very little satisfaction.
It is indeed an extraordinary estimate of the hearers of the Church,
which- can bestow on them the peremptory right of rejection on such a
trial as they generally can have. I think that those greatly err who are
disposed to underrate the comparative value of the talent of preaching,
in reference to other and most useful parts of the ministerial character
and labours. But still the talent for preaching is not by any means
the only qualification for the ministry, nor is it dispensed equally to
all, nor can it be possessed in any great degree by all. The theory of
a useful, faithful, excellent ministry in a national church is not that the
gift of preaching is to be shared equally, or in an eminent degree, by
all. Now, of other most important qualifications, the trial on which
the judgment of the congregation is to take place gives them no know
ledge whatever, while the individual may have proved himself in many
particulars eminently qualified for the charge of a parish, and may be
Evidence, p. 184.
223
known to the Presbytery to possess the same. Yet he may be finally
rejected, exactly because the taste of the people for one and perhaps a
faulty style of preaching has been formed.
Again, in many instances, another circumstance may bias the con
gregation as to the sermon which they are to hear from the presentee.
During the last years of the former incumbency, if the clergyman has
been aged or long ill, some friend of his acting as assistant may have
recommended himself to the people. His style of preaching, though
not better by any means, may be peculiar — may have become acceptable
to the people, who have got accustomed to him, and who may not re
flect that perhaps at first they did not like him,- — or though his preach
ing is inferior, he may have been most useful and acceptable in other
duties — they have wished to have this individual settled among them,
aud not getting him, the Individual whom they are to judge of on a
trial sermon has but little chance oi pleasing them, if through his ap
pointment they are to lose another to whom they have been accustomed.
No doubt, on the principle that the people ought to select and choose
their own pastor, those who support the Veto because it leads to the
abolition of patronage, and in the meantime practically destroys it
whenever the people choose to exercise their right to reject, will
say that this case Is one in which the benefit of the Veto comes into
play. But on the principles on which the Veto professedly is advo
cated — on the views stated by Dr. Chalmers — a rejection on such
grounds as I have alluded to is an unjust and unsatisfactory exercise of
it—a judgment not proceeding on legitimate grounds — a rejection of
an individual whom the Church may know to be admirably qualified
for that parish. The people do not form a sound judgment on a trial
sermon, being biassed, unknown to themselves, by considerations which
do not affect the gifts or qualifications of the presentee.
But there is another case, of a different description, which is very
likely to occur, and of which appearances have already manifested them
selves. I have adverted to the probabilities that the neighbouring cler
gymen of the Presbytery may take — (such a measure tempts and encou
rages them to take) — peculiar interest in the appointment to the vacant
parish. To any one acquainted with Scotland, I need not enlarge on
these probabilities. They may wish a particular Individual appointed,
— the parties among them may be nearly balanced in church politics —
(that fruitful source of keenness, of conflict, of individual estrangement
in the Scotch Church) — and the nomination of a person likely to alter
the balance of parties in the small provincial Presbytery, (perhaps con
sisting only of six or seven, or eight or ten members), would be a sad
mortification to the actual majority at the time. During the vacancy,
these clergymen preach in rotation in the church. They often officiate
in the parish for other duties. They may know many of the parishioners.
They are brought into frequent communication with the kirk-session.
Their opinions on all points may have great w^ght, and will often be
asked. They may have individuals-to preach in their own Churches,
224
during the vacancy, whom they wish to recommend. In practice,
however regular, we know that favoured probationers have been al
lowed to preach in the vacant church. The prospect of the exer
cise of the Veto calls forth among the parishioners new views, when
a vacancy occurs, as to their own rights. A few hints may easily be
dropped which may indispose the people to look favourably on any one
to be nominated by the particular patron. The peculiar tone of the ser
mons preached during the vacancy may, by the selection of the topics,
though without direct alluslOn, predispose the people against the indi
vidual who may be presented. The known opinions of the Presbytery
in regard to him when he is appointed — the passing remarks of mem
bers of Presbytery in regard to the selection, when they are not to have
the responsibility and duty of publicly and collectively judging for them
selves — the style and tone of the sermons which may be preached after
his appointment is known, or when it is thought that the patron means
to select an individual for the charge — fervent and inflated discourses
on the value and importance of the liberty which the Church has given,
and on the duty of using and asserting that liberty,* — ina thousand ways,
in short, the Presbytery may influence, and, as it were, wholly direct the
result of the appeal to the Veto, In regard to an individual against whom
no objection whatever lies, and whom the Presbytery could not but
pass and admit as an excellent person, if on them lay the responsibility
and duty of judgment in the face of the Church and subject to the
powers. The Veto gives on every occasion the greatest possible temptation to
members of Presbytery to Interfere. In many instances their motives
may be most honest — their object may appear most legitimate — the
good of the people may be frequently the end which they believe they
have sincerely in view.
No one understanding Scotland can doubt, that the effect of the
Veto will be to place a great and powerful engine at the command of
Presbyteries, which will be often and industriously directed and set in
motion by them. The measure will alter materially the relative posi
tion of Presbyteries towards the people and the Church at large, in the
important function of collation. At present they occupy the import
ant solemn station of judges, acting openly before the Church, and
on grounds which admit of appeal from their judgment ; but their
position will be wholly altered by this measure. Rejection relieves
them of all responsibility. They possess the means of influencing that
decision — unseen — under no responsibility — allowed to act each accord
ing to individual impulse and to individual opportunities.
And what will be the result ?
1. That while they will generally attain their object, if the intention
is to bring about rejection, the Presbytery will very speedily suffer in
estimation and respect even among the people whom they so influence.
* Many instances have occurred of such sermons. Some will be
afterwards referred to.
225
This is the case in every instance in which clergymen interfere in mat
ters beyond the strict line of duty. The Interference is often most
effectual ; but the result uniformly impairs their proper influence as
ministers of religion, and diminishes the authority of and respect for
the clerical character.
2. That practically very great power will be acquired by the Church
itself in the nomination of clergymen — a result of all others to be de
precated. I hardly know any one thing which would be more prejudi
cial to the Interests of Scotland, than the clergy directing in this pri
vate manner the operation of the Veto, and securing thereby either the
selection, in the first instance or ultimately, of the persons they wished,
without the responsibility of public presentation, or the actual exercise
of the right of presentation, by the patron's forfeiture of it.
I wish to bring to bear here the just and weighty remarks of Lord
Moncreiff, (Patronage Evidence), in answer to the question as to his
opinion ' on the expediency of vesting the right of election in the
' Presbytery ?' — ' The first scheme which was struggled for by the
* churches was, that the Presbyteries should have the power. The
' Presbyteries seem to have wished to bring themselves into the posi-
' tion, not merely of the bishops, but I think really, into the position
' of the pope ; to have the universal patronage in their own hands.
' Now 1 do not suppose that it is necessary for the satisfaction of the
' Committee — It is not necessary, at all events, for the purpose of ex-
' pressing my own opinion — to go into any detailed statement. In order
' to shew that a scheme by which the power of appointment should be
' put in the Presbytery would not be satisfactory to any one. If we
' were only to look to the more numerous and eminent Presbyteries,
' whose proceedings are most before the public, there might seem to be
' no great danger of their acting improperly. Yet with all the respec-
' tabllity those Presbyteries possess, we all know, that even in them
' party spirit and party division frequently prevail, which would ren-
' der that Court, in my opinion, a very unfit instrument for originating
' the nomination in all cases. But in the remote districts of Scotland,
' we find Presbyteries composed of three or four members, and very sel-
' dom more than two sitting together, where they have to travel great
' distances by water, and sometimes In the winter season. Considering
' the infirmities of human nature, it is impossible not to see that there
' would be great tendency to jobbing if such a power were given to
' them. There is no man who entertains greater reverence and re-
' spect for the Presbyteries of the Church than I do. But without
' saying more. It seems to be enough to state, that I conceive it impos-
' sible that any plan for giving the power of appointment to the Pres-
' byteiies would be satisfactory to the public.'*
It was justly stated by his venerable father. Sir H. Moncreiff,'-f- —
(than whom no one had more profoundly studied the character of the
Church of Scotland, or better knew both the character of his brethren as
* Evidence, p. 180. -(- Constitution, p. 34.
226
an ecclesiastical body, and the tendency to extreme opinions which cer
tain parts of the constitution of the Church will create,, if not under due
regulation), — in commenting on the effect of the directory established in
1649, by the Assembly to whom Parliament entrusted the power of fix
ing the mode of calling ministers, when patronage was in that year abo
lished by one of the rescinded acts, that the effect of the change was to
enable the Church to place their own nominees in benefices. — ' By the
' directory for the election of ministers of 1649, if a majority of the con-
' gregation dissented, they were to give their reasons, oi which the Pres-
' bytery were to judge. If the Presbytery should find their dissent
' founded on causeless prejudices, they were notwithstanding to proceed to
' the settlement of the person elected. And there is a clause subjoined,
' which in those times would apply to many cases, " That when the
" congregation was disaffected or malignant, in that case the Presbytery
" were (by their own authority) to provide the parish with a minister."
' Though this mode seemed to give weight to the clergy only in the
' first nomination, or on extraordinary emergencies, and more influence
' to the people in ordinary cases, it is evident that the clergy had still
' the chief Influence in the ultimate decision, as well as in the selection
' of the candidates. For when the people were divided, which very
' generally happened, it lay with the Church Courts at last to deter-
' mine between the parties ; and it can scarcely be supposed, with all
* the purity which can be ascribed to the intentions of the clergy, that
' the candidate who had most favour among them was often rejected.'
The influence which Sir H. Moncreiff objected to as one unfortunate
effect of the arrangements made by the Assembly in 1649, will, though
in a less legitimate manner, be exerted and operate in a much greater
degree under the Veto scheme. And in several instances which have
occurred, it was manifest to the whole country, that the rejection was
truly brought about by the Presbytery.
Even the year after the Veto passed, it was found necessary, in the
Pastoral Admonition by the Assembly, to address to Presbyteries the
same reproof which was addressed to the people, and to remind them
that their influence ought not to be exerted either to lead to rejection
or to secure the ultimate nomination for any one favoured by themselves.
Indeed, the Assembly of 1835 had before them, besides many startling
instances of interference by members of Presbyteries, extracts from a
sermon in the case of Trinity Gask (as published by the clergyman
himself), preached in the summer of 1834, immediately after the pre
sentation was issued, of a character which called most loudly for such
an admonition. The presentee was vetoed, — though, from a point of
form, as to whether the case fell within the new act, and whether a roll
had been made up in time, the right to put a Veto on the nomination
was, by the assembly, declared not to have come into operation, and a
most meritorious and exemplary Individual was thus saved to theChurch.
But the sermon (see Scottish Pulpit, No. 145, Saturday, January
3, 1835), contained the most vehement and impassioned exhortations
to the people, couched in Scripture language, and enforced by Scrip
tural quotations, to use the liberty which they had received, without re-
227
gard to obstacles, and to turn to account their privilege* Such exhor
tations immediately after a presentation was issued, (I believe to as ex
emplary a person as ever entered the Church, with the most satisfactory
testimonials from the most eminent clergymen of both parties in the
Church, giving him the highest character in every respect), could not
but produce the only effect for which such sermons can be intended.
Many other instances could be adduced of clergymen, during a vacancy,
preaching on the subject of the Veto, and of the exercise of It by the
people; some In one strain, some in another, but all proving the cer
tainty of great, frequent, and most mischievous interference by indivi
dual members of Presbytery.
It was not surprising that an admonition to Presbyteries became
necessary, even in the course of the first year after this ill-judged mea
sure was passed.
The influence which they would acquire would not practically be
much less, although the Presbyteries should agree so far to alter the
regulations, as to allow the Veto to apply to those presented, yure devo
luto, by the Presbytery. In the course of the preliminary opposition
to the presentee of the patron, it would be easy to interest the people
for the person whose appointment the Presbytery wish to secure. Op
position to the one leads the people, as was often seen in the dl.sputed
settlements about a century ago, to take up another, even although in
every way inferior, and to identify the desire for his settlement with the
resolution to oppose or reject the presentee of the patron.
One practical objection to the plan of the Veto, indeed, is, that in
dividuals who have friends In the parish can easily get opposition to the
nominee of the patron stirred up, and then, in the discussion as to the
propriety of rejecting him, the people come to be interested in and com
mitted to the other, without due inquiry or knowledge or reflection.
The opposition to the presentee, and the ultimate success of the other,
become a common cause : every thing which tells against the former,
comes to make in favour of the latter, — and the people are thus en
gaged for one whom, if they had had the power of choice originally,
they probably might not have chosen. As a means of obtaining a good
appointment, when the people are disposed to Veto, I believe the plan
to be even less likely to be successful than popular election would be.
And when, as will often happen, the other individual, making inter
est in his own favour, and tolerably sure that the result of the Veto
will force the patron to take him, or throw the matter into the hands of
the Presbyteries, happens to be a friend or connection of some of the
* It is difficult to convey any notion of the style and tone of this ser
mon : and the very fact that the clergyman published it in order to
shew that he had not thrown a ' firebrand' into the parish, is a proof
of the extent of interference and direction which some clergymen think
they may legitimately exercise. p
228
Presbytery or other neighbouring clergymen — backed by their known
opinions and wishes, (and what case is there, in which there are not
some licentiates having such connections and means of influence.''), of
course the bias given to the parish, and the extent to which they will
be committed, will be much greater, — and hence, when the presentee
comes to preach his trial sermon, the people are really not in a frame
of mind to bring their own judgments fairly to bear on the merits of
one service. They may think him better than they expected. But still,
it is a different thing to give up the views and impressions which they
previously received ; — meetings and parties have been formed with a
view to opposition, at which individuals become committed and pledged
to oppose : — a single sermon is seldom, even if heard with perfect im
partiality, likely to break down such opposition, — and the judgment
formed is not even the fair result of their opinions of the sermon, sup
posing that an opinion formed after one public service, ought ever to be
acted upon by the Church.
Nay, if prejudiced in any way against the presentee, it is not even
necessary that they should have been in Church to hear the service. They
may dissent, whether they heard the presentee or not.
The Interference which is thus anticipated from the Presbyteries, In
thus blassing and influencing the opinions and views with which the
people are to hear and decide upon the presentee, implies no disrespect
for the Church or the Church Courts. The remarks of Lord Moncreiff
apply most justly to such a case.
1 have perfect confidence In the justice and soundness and fairness
of their decisions, or, if they err, in the sufficiency of the means of ap
peal, when they are to act in a judicial capacity before the whole
Church, with the controul and under the check of publicity in their
proceedings, and the consequent influence of public opinion. In that
character and capacity we can rely upon the exercise of their judicial
functions when called upon to decide upon grounds of objection stat
ed to them, whether general or particular, to the presentee — grounds
on which they are to form their own opinion and judgment— the validity
of which, in respect to all his ministerial gifts and qualifications, the
presentee can bring to the test, by appeal to the Synod and Assembly,
and may ultimately have tested by a committee of the Assembly ap
pointed to examine him, to hear him preach, and judge of the suffici
ency of the grounds on which he has been rejected.
But it is a very different thing when you open up to men the means
of exercising — apparently, too, with a laudable and good object — a
secret and private influence among neighbours and acquaintances, by
the reports spread of their own wishes and opinions — by hints, suffici
ently significant at first, and rendered much more pointed as they are
repeated and commented upon, as to the style of preaching, and the
sort of person they had hoped the good people of A. would have
had — by regrets that the patron is not going to attend to the ex
cellent recommendations he has received, or to the wishes of the people
— that, after all, the parish is to be made a job of; — when you open up,
229
in short, to men acting without any responsibility, by private influ
ence and secret suggestions, such a field for the exercise of influence
as the direction and bias of the opinions of a vacant parish, and of the
impressions with which they are to take the trial service of the unlucky
presentee, against whom so much may be directed, without. In fact,
one thing really ' personal' to him — to ' his ministerial gifts orquali-
' ficatlons,' being said or even known.
Let it be remembered, that each case of a Veto which occurs in a
district, leads In other parishes to the power being again exercised.
The people of B. are the more easily Induced to do that which the people
of A. have already done.
Each case of influence exerted by the members of a Presbytery, en
courages, facilitates, and leads to the same results in other parishes, and
prepares the people to be guided and biassed in that way, and from that
quarter. In most of the observations I have hitherto made, I have assumed,
that the motives leading to rejection, however biassed or influenced, may
be conscientious, and that there is no disposition to exercise the power,
with a view to secure the selection and appointment to themselves — or
from a preference for another person — or, generally, from aversion to
the nomination of a patron — or from the result of improper canvassing
and Intrigues in the parish, either by candidates or by parishioners
themselves. And I have hitherto considered the ^'eto, according to
the theory on which it was proposed, as Intended only to give an oppor
tunity to dissent against a choice freely made by the patron, on his own
responsibility, and without either dictation or choice by the people.
But let us consider dispassionately what demands are made on one's
confidence in human nature, when it is imagined that the system,
which gives absolute and irresponsible power on a matter of such interest
and excitement to the people, is to work according to the theory of
its projectors, and that the causes 1 have adverted to are not largely and
frequently to operate, or that the measure is not practically to secure
election by the people.
It may be true, that, in many of the cases which have occurred, the
people have not as yet fully understood the irresponsible nature of the
power entrusted to them, and have not been able to throw off the feel
ing arising from previous understanding that dissent implies the state
ment of some objection. But the nature and extent of the absolute
right to reject, and of the power to dictate the selection of the clergy
man, which It implies, will soon be more thoroughly understood ; and
each case, in each district of the country, in which the Veto is exercised,
will speedily and effectually dissipate the remains of such a wholesome
and proper feeling. Every month has tended to do so. And in many
instances, sermons by members of Presbytery on the nature and extent
and importance of the Christian liberty of the people, and the import
ance to themselves of acting upon and using it, have made them fully
understand that their power is absolute and irresponsible.
Again, all candidates anxious to secure an Interest in the parish, of
230
course take pains to point out that if the people choose to exercise the
power they have — if they choose, before any one is presented, to shew
that they know their power and mean to exercise it — if they make that
resolution sufficiently apparent, the patron must practically yield the
selection to them, or must engage in a long and disagreeable contest,
during which the Church will be vacant, and the people will take a
keener interest in the matter.
If your Lordship will peruse the evidence of Lord Moncreiff in
March 1834, before the Patronage Committee, you will find that it
consists of two parts, — one a most conclusive and powerful statement of
the evils attending popular election, illustrated by many impressive
instances of the operation of such a system, taken from his own ex
perience or that of others, from whom he had full opportunities of
obtaining valuable information on the subject ; — and, secondly, of
remarks in reference to Dr. Chalmers's motion in 1833, and of the
reasons why he believed that a Veto would avoid all the disadvantages
of any of the modes of popular selection, on which his opinion had
been asked, and given so emphatically. In the passage already quot
ed, he condemns in the most decided terms the nature of a choice
to be made by the people out of a list or leet of candidates whom the
patron or some other body might select and propose to the people,
and he states how differently he supposed the Veto or Dissent, as he
termed it, would work. ' I have not the smallest idea that the dissent
' of which I speak, would have the least resemblance to a popular elec-
' tion.' Among other reasons he explained, that in the system of elec
tion, the people must have the choice or selection, which would lead to
' every degree of contest and cabal, for the purpose of securing the object
' of one particular person being named. But ' here' (i. e. in the Veto
plan) ' they have no such choice — they never can have it. The person
« is presented to them by the lawful patron, and his presentation is so
' far sustained. It Is for them to say whether they dissent from it or
' not.' He then explained that he believed there would be very few
examples of the dissent being given, except ' on very strong and well
' rooted grounds.' The notion that the people, finding their power to
be supreme, would thereby secure the choice or selection either of one
particular individual, or enforce a right to choose out of a list to be sub
mitted to them, or of canvassing going on through the parish in order
to obtain the support, which the candidates knew would dictate to the
patron the nomination of the person who had that support, as the only
chance of his presentee not being vetoed ; in short, the notion of the
right of rejection being used as a means of exerting their power to dic
tate and command the selection, seems never to have crossed the mind
of my most excellent and esteemed friend, who judged of mankind at
large by his own deep and strong religious feelings, and his own sacred
sense of duty.*
* Whether, in March 1834, Lord Moncreiff contemplated retaining the
231
Dr. M'Gill's knowledge of the character of the people, among whom
he had so long laboured as a minister, was different : and he predicted,
before the Veto passed, that they would soon use the Veto in order to
ensure direct nomination and choice.
Your Lordship would remark, that in the Pastoral Admonition issued
by the General Assembly in 1835, they specially adverted to the reli
ance they placed on the plan of the Veto law being properly under
stood and acted upon by patrons as well as by the people, and their
conviction that it would not work well if not understood and attended
to in the way contemplated ' by its framers,' — for the admonition (sin
gularly enough for an exhortation from the Assembly of the Church)
seems more in the strain of an expostulation from those who framed
the act, than of reproof from the Church, and is somewhat in the tone
of complaint and regret that the objects and views of ' its framers' had
been misunderstood, and that the Veto law had been, or would be, turn
ed to objects and used in a way never contemplated by them.
Perhaps, in reading the reference in the Admonition of 1835 to pa
trons, your Lordship may have supposed that the Assembly intended
to intimate that they thought the patrons had not sufficiently attended
to the wishes of the people : The fact was the very reverse. Many
complained that even then, in the course of the first year, the patrons
had practically given, in many instances, the people their choice, and so
that the evils of popular election, or of selection from leets or lists, had
been introduced, — as if the patrons could be complained of for yielding
to the power, with which the Assembly had so unwittingly armed the
people, and which the latter so soon came to understand and enforce.
Accordingly, in the year 1836, when a motion was made to ' declare
' that patronage was a grievance,' and to appoint a Committee in order
to get rid of it, most of the speakers, both of the advocates of the '\'^eto
law, and of the opponents of patronage, (for the discussion was chiefly
between them), complained more or less — the one class that it had not
produced peace and quiet in parishes — the other, that the patrons had
yielded too much to the people, which might explain the evils which had
occurred. The motion was seconded by my friend Mr, Colquhoun of
important checks upon the exercise of the Veto, which Dr, Chalmers's
motion in 1833 contained, I cannot exactly, from his evidence, make out.
From his contemplating a motion ' to the same effect, or nearly to the
' same effect,'' I presume that he did — for the distinction between the
proposal he afterwards made in May 1834, and the motion in 1833, is,
as I have shewn, essential in point of principle : And the other wit
nesses examined, who had approved of the motion in 1833, had all
stated that they considered the check or restraint of a right to appeal
to the Presbytery, and of that body investigating whether there
was ' truly any objection personal to the presentee, founded on his min-
' isterial gifts and qualifications,' or whether the opposition originated
' in corrupt and malicious combinations,' as most necessary and im
portant.
232
Killermont, who attacked patronage altogether, and maintained that
' the constitution of the Church' was, ' that a small and select body,' (I
presume the Session,) ' should have the selection of the man whom they
' should offer to the congregation,' (taking the view of the act of Assem-
blyl649orofl690,when patronagewas abolished), to be ' the constitution
' of theChurch,'He said, — 'TheVeto act, it was said, would bring peace:
' He must say that it had not produced peace, and they had seen rb-
' PEATED proofs to THE CONTRARY.' In a prcvIous part of his speech, he
also alluded to the notion ' that the Church had now tied their cords
' around the patron, and bound him so, that he could do no mischief;'
and explained that, in so far as the Veto had done any good, (In his
opinion), it was because the patrons had in many cases ' denuded them-
' selves of the power which the law gave them,' — bearing testimony to
the unquestionable fact, that it had led in various cases, in the course of
two years, to that very state of things against which the excellent mover
of the Veto had been persuaded that he sufficiently protected the in
terests of the Church and of religion by this very change. Mr. Colqu-
houn's arguments were met by one of the most zealous defenders of the
Veto, the Reverend Dr. Simpson, who exposed the evils of all the sys
tems of popular election, — and then, after a general assertion that the
Veto had worked well, — went on to say, ' It is not wonderful if the
' Veto act has not worked well. I enter my complaint in reference to
' this against various parties. I would complain first of the patrons
' themselves. They have not understood what the Assembly considered
' to be their proper position under this Bill.' Then he said, if any
one had not been careful in the selection, that individual could not be
defended. ' My complaint is, that the patrons, instead of doing what
' the Assembly intended them to do, have done nothing : They have
' HANDED OVER THE ELECTION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE PBO-
' PLE.' In the very powerful speech which Lord Moncreiff made against the
motion, — (full of matter of the highest interest at the present moment,
and deprecating any application by the Church to Parliament for any
change of any kind in the constitution of the Church), — I do not find
that the complaint of Dr. Simpson on this point is denied.
Mr. Dunlop, one of the principal members of the present Committee,
answered Lord Moncreiff at length, and specially complained of the work
ing of the Veto act, as he had done, indeed, in the preceding year. His
speech is instructive as to the views with which, after fuller experience
of its practical effects in bringing about popular election, the right of
rejection is now pressed upon Parliament. He said, ' It had been al-
' leged that he and those who acted with him had accepted of the Veto
' as a sufficient antidote to patronage. If such had been the case, he
' admitted there would have been some ground to charge them with in-
' consistency, but the truth was, they never intimated their satisfaction
' with the Veto. He did think that it would render the yoke of pa-
' tronage lighter, but when he saw the working of that act, he resolved
' to fight under the banners for which his fathers fought. He admitted
' also that considerable practical good had resulted to the Church from
233
' the act. It had at least been effectual in excluding in one case, and
* in leading patrons to be careful in making selections in accordance
' with the wishes of the people ; but the chief benefit had been in patronif
' allowing the people lo make their own choice.'
He then referred to cases In support of his views respecting popu
lar election. ' He held that patronage was grievous, because it was
' contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures, and upon that broad ground
' did he seek Its abolition.'
Mr. Dunlop stated, that since the preceding Assembly, there had been
in all sixty appointments, — fifteen were to the new Churches, where there
is no right of patronage. Of the remaining forty-five, he s'^ated, with
satisfaction, as a proof of the only good that the Veto could do, that iui
twenty-four cases ' the patrons had either devolved the choice over on the
' people, or taken at once their man.' Of the other nineteen, where the
patron selected, ' there were six cases, or nearly a third of the whole, in
' which the Veto had either been put in force, and litigation had fol-
' lowed, or in which heat, division, and animosity had prevailed.' His
object was to show, that the Veto act worked 111, on its proper principle
and plan : That it produced divisions in parishes, — that it was often ex
ercised' in proportion to the attempts to present by the patron, — ' that if
' it worked well, it had been by producing an abandonment of
' patronage ;' — (Is this the view of it in which Dr. Chalmers thinks
that it has worked well .?) ' and his object was to secure this result
' in ALL CASES, AND TO ALL PARISHES.' More Important evidence on
the matter of fact cannot be desired.
These opinions, I have not a doubt that my learned friend means to
promote, so far as he can, by the measures which the Committee at
Jiresent recommend. What has occurred subsequently, no doubt tends
to recommend the enforcement of the Veto in the meantime, even more
to him, and those with whom he concurs, — for, as I shall afterwai-ds
notice, the further working of the Veto law has tended to deprive,
more generally, patrons of any selection in the nomination of ministers,
and to compel them, to surrender to the people a choice, which ulti
mately they saw the latter could effectually secure for themselves, by a
Veto on the nomination of any one but the person they chose to have
Indeed, the fact has since become too notorious to be disputed
any longer, and if the Veto has found more favour in the eyes of
the opponents of Patronage, it is chiefly because it has tended so
much more than they anticipated to secure their object, — that of po
pular election, in one shape or other, by the people.
But It is always to be remembered, that if such are the results of
the Veto, these are consequences quite adverse to the principles on
which It was proposed, and to the objects which it was Intended by its
authors to promote. Nay, it was proposed in the belief and the hope
that it would secure the Church against these results, as very great
evils, which the authors of the Veto anxiously desired to exclude.
It is now advocated by the leading opponents of patronage, who, with
in so short a period, declared their disapprobation of the measure.
234
Their reason for this change of feeling in regard to the measure is ob
vious. But the facts which recommend it more to them, prove, beyond a
doubt, that it has failed to produce the results which its authors pro
posed to themselves, — that the Pastoral Admonition and Reproof of
1 835 has had no effect, (and who ever imagined that it would .?) and
that we are now to consider the proposal of giving legislative au
thority to the measure, after it has been proved, in practice, to be a
very different engine from what was represented by its sanguine pro
jectors. If, however, the abolition of patronage is the real object, — if the
recommendation of the measure Is, in truth, that it has promoted that
object which the great majority and active members of the Commit
tee have in view, let us understand this at once : — Let the object be
fairly avowed, which is to be attained by the proposals and claims of
the Church. It is at least desirable to know, that the object is to
secure that ' fatal boon,* which many ' so ignorantly' demand.
The statements to which I refer, by one of the ablest defenders of
the Veto, and also by one of the leading members of the present Com
mittee, relieves me of the necessity of quoting instances before the de
bate I allude to as to the effects of the measure.
The people, In many instances, very soon took the matter into their
own hands, — and in a great many instances the patrons, seeing the
effect of the measure, have given up the duty and responsibility of
selection to the people, or have given the people the selection from a
list, — waiting the result of the legal trial of the question as to future
cases. The patronage of the Crown has been in many cases so defeated, —
the people receiving their choice or selection out of a list, (the very
mode condemned by Lord Moncreiff, in the passage already quoted),
in other words, they have got practically their choice.
Your Lordship heard, in the course of the last month (August),
an amiable Scotch nobleman (the sincerity of whose interests in the re
ligious concerns of his country no one will dispute), complain in the
House of Lords, on occasion of a question put by Lord Brougham, that
under the system of administering the Crown patronage (which the
Veto has introduced), a sort of ' preaching match' was got up in pa
rishes, most injurious to the interests of the Church.
The result has been, both as to the Crown patronage and that of
individuals, that as the people shewed in many instances that they
would have their choice, a list of candidates is often given to the peo
ple, or they are sometimes desired to frame a list, or are allowed at
once their choice.
I take as an example one of the many cases which occurred within
Lord Jeffrey — opinion in the Auchterarder Case.
235
the year which followed the debate of 1836, — that of the parish of
Cupar.* Captain Werayss, the member for the county of Fife, writes to the
Session Clerk, (21st January 1837) — ^ presume by authority, —
' That Lord John Russell having resolved that the heritors and male
' heads of families In communion with the Church of Cupar, shall have
' a free voice In the choice of their pastor,' &c. ' and his Lordship hav-
' ing deputed the details of that resolve to me on behalf of the Crown,'
— the member goes on to desire steps to be taken to obtain, within
fourteen days from this date, the opinion of the parish. Then Captain
Wemyss states, that as certain heritors wish ' this to be settled by
' BALLOT, in order to secure to the communicants a free and uncoerced
' vote,' — ' I have no objection to that course, — provided only the com-
' municants ballot," &c.
The proposal for the ballot-|- was negatived by the communicants,-^-
291 voted for one gentleman, being the second minister of the parish,
196 against that individual, — of the latter 44 were disallowed on a
scrutiny or investigation carried on by Captain Wemyss.
Captain Wemyss made some report on the subject, which led to the
following letter : — ' Whitehall, February 1 4, 1 837. My dear Sir, —
' Lord John Russell having duly considered the report and documents
' on the subject of the vacancy in the parish of Cupar, conveyed in
' your letter of 8th Instant, has desired me to say, that in consequence
' of the very improper canvassing which appears to have taken place
' in that parish, he cannot issue a presentation in favour of Mr. Bir-
' rell. Lord John Russell desires that a list may be given of neutral
' men, the names of whom are herewith subjoined. I have only to
' add, that as soon as these gentlemen have had a fair hearing, you
' will be so good as report to him the result. Faithfully yours.
(Signed) ' Charles Gore.'
The Presbytery unanimously thought that the charge of improper
canvassing should be investigated. The kirk-session and two hundred
and forty-six heads of families made a similar application. That was
* In many other cases, similar proceedings have occurred, where a
choice has been given to the people, or a power of selection out of a
list, — and the details as to the manner in which it was managed, — of
the tracasseries and dissensions in the parishes, — the public meetings,
— the placards and pamphlets issued on the occasion, — and the animo
sities and bitterness which followed, whether the Veto ended in rejec
tion or not, would, if collected from the country newspapers, exhibit a
lamentable picture of the effect of this measure in marring the peace of
the Church of Scotland, and in carrying even into the quietest parishes,
one of the most fruitful causes of division and heat. I take the case of
Cupar, however, as it happens to combine a variety of illustrations of
the system.
¦}• In several other cases, the individual has been chosen by ballot.
236
refused, — very properly ; — for the error lay in the first step, and in the
belief either that canvassing would not, in such circumstances, take place,
or that imputations of it by the dissatisfied minority would not be made,
so as to create dissension and discord in regard to the election. The
Presbytery, thinking the election which had been made a fair one, and
naturally hurt at the disappointment of their co-presbyter, whose hap
piness in the parish could not but be Injured by the whole affair, re
fused the use of the pulpit for the intended competition, and a presen
tation was ultimately Issued to one of the list, — who, much to his cre
dit, as soon as he heard he was on Lord John Russell's list, wrote, to
say that he would ' not preach as a competitor for the vacancy.' *
* In alluding to this case, I take it simply as an illustration, which
very early occurred, of the working of the Veto. The advisers of the
Crown, fully aware by this time of the effect of the Veto, tried first a
popular election. As might be expected in such a case, and as will
happen whenever the population of an Important parish is to be con
sulted on the subject, in such a way, politics and secularanterests im
mediately operate. A return was made of this popular election : The
politics of the individual happened to be widely different from those of the
Member. The Member made some report upon it, — the Crown thought
that there had been Improper canvassing in the parish, and on that ac
count refused to present the individual whom the majority had named:
The parties denied that there was any canvassing : but as an illustration
of the working of the system, the fact Is immaterial, for the charge
was strenuously made by the discontented minority, and the election,
admittedly made by a large majority, was most keenly attacked — on
the ground, that a popular election had been marked by improper
canvassing ! The Crown then tried the other course. A list was
then given of Individuals, of whom a ' fair hearing' was to be al
lowed. As the Presbytery refused to allow them to preach in this
particular case, from some notion that the character of the parish should
first be vindicated against the charge of improper canvassing, the com
petition in this instance did not take place. But 161 of the communi
cants actually dissented when the roll was called, — and thus, though not
a majority sufficient to ensure rejection, the greatest heat and bitterness
was exhibited in the parish, and the utmost division and discord took
place ; an evil to which I shall afterwards advert, as frequently attending
the Veto, even when the presentee may not be rejected. On the day when
the Veto was to be allowed placards were posted through the town, cal
ling on the communicants to support the presentee, and imputing the
utmost arts to the other party to get up unfair opposition. The mino
rity brdught the case up to the Assembly, in order to get the presentee
rejected, — and, as far as I can judge from their own statement, they
had dissented and tried to Veto him, — first, because they wished the
person of their own choice ; and, secondly, because they said that the
presentee, being a violent enemy of patronage, ought not to have step
ped in to interfere with the result of the election which had taken
237
Though the competition here did not take place, that was accidental.
In other cases, all Ihe gentlemen on the list preach successively to
the congregation as rival candidates ior the Church. In most in
stances, several have been recommended by parties in the parish,
and have made Interest for support. Of course, it is comparative
ly much more easy to obtain recommendations which will lead to a
person being placed on such a list, either by the Crown or by a pri
vate patron, than would ensure the selection of that individual, if the
responsibility of ultimate choice were left to the patron. This 'preach-
' ing match ' is a source of great interest in the neighbourhood, — the
subject engrosses the whole surrounding population, — every exertion is
made, by different parties, to uphold the individual they like best ; and
then there is a vote upon the subject, — frequently. Indeed I may say
always, a vote by the congregation, — for the notion of confining this
matter practically to the communicants is absurd.
Is this, a decorous, a seemly, a decent procedure for the nomination
and appointment of the clergymen of the Established Church ? Is it
likely to secure the selection of men of learning and talent, — of inde
pendent character, — who disdain the arts necessary to acquire favour on
such first impressions, or a previous popular interest In the parish,
— who enter the ministry with higher views and a different estimate
of pastoral duty and of the pastoral office, — and by whom such a
competition, with all the accompaniments, would be felt to be most re
volting and degrading.
Is there any one so ignorant of human nature as to suppose, that In a
short space of time, the observations of Dr. Forbes and Dr. Simpson, al
ready quoted, will not be fully verified, and that the attention of licenti
ates will be directed to the mode of preaching likely to be popular, as the
only and sufficient object of study .'' Every year will tend necessarily to
induce, indeed to compel, licentiates to think more and more of the means
of recommending themselves to popular favour ; and the more frequent
the disposal of parishes on this plan, the more instances will be ex
hibited of the success which will attend previous canvassing and in
fluencing the parish in favour of particular candidates, and of the
efficacy and importance of the various modes in which interest and
exertions niay secure preference over others. This plan of ascertaining
the individual whom the parish prefers, gives the prize to the result of
numbers, without regard to any other circumstance whatever, and of
course, in, every such case, the risk is run of all the effects of popular
election, which many of the advocates of the Veto so strenuously de
precate.
place, — and they quoted some published speech by this minister against
patronage. They seem to have had no other grounds, for their dissent.
Yet being dissatisfied with not getting their choice, they took the strong
step to dissent in such numbers, and to bring it up to the Assembly,
although against the individual presented they had not in truth an ob
jection to state.
238
The very fact that a great many of the Crown patronages were,
in a short time, disposed of in one or other of the modes resorted to in
Cupar, sufficiently proves how well founded was the complaint of Dr.
Simpson, that the patrons had misunderstood the intention of the
Assembly, and how soon the people, in many districts, had found out,
as Dr. M'Gill predicted, the power which the Veto necessarily placed
in their hands.
I must again urge it as a most Important point for consideration,
that though this has been practically the result of the operation of the
Veto, since patrons have been compelled, or induced in the hope of
peace or popularity, to give the people their choice out of a list of can
didates who are to preach before them, it is not the plan or principle
of the Veto in theory. The Veto was not recommended and introduced
because it would lead to such results, and to such a mode of securing
election by the people. All that the theory of that measure contem
plates is, that the patron is to select with care, anxiety, and a wish
to get an acceptable person ; and then, that the Presbytery are to say
to the people, ' Do you find cause on your conscience, as Christians,
' to object to that individual as your pastor : You shall hear him preach.
' On that account or any other, we do not ask on what, can you say you
' will not be edified by blm ?' This theory assumed that the judgment
was to be formed on one person, and dissent expressed only ' on strong
' and deep-rooted grounds.' But the proposer of the Veto never thought
the people were qualified to select, — and earnestly and anxiously pro
tested against that mode of election or choice, which is exhibited in
giving the people an opportunity of selecting or choosing out of a list
of individuals, whether framed by the patron or any other body. Not
one of the arguments used by Dr. Chalmers, either to prove that the
people ought to have a right to reject, apply to, or support the giving
them a power to choose and select the person who ou^ht to be their
clergyman. There may be parishes in which a considerable number of persons
may be qualified to form such a judgment. But 'f the operation
of the Veto shall generally produce the result I have adverted to, it does
appear too extravagant to say, that, throughout Scotland at large, the
people are qualified to form such a judgment.
The necessity of giving the people their choice, either by a free selec
tion, or out of a list of candidates, (which, after all, may not ensure
against a Veto), will of course be greatest in the very parishes where
the people are most unfit to be trusted with the power — where they
have shewn the disposition to use the Veto, so as practically to gain
this object, if not ait once conceded to them, and in large populous
parishes where the Crown or other patron looks more to the popularity,
which, for the time, may be gained by throwing this boon to the people,
and where the elements of strife are greatest.
In all such cases, the very spirit which renders the concession neces
sary, only exhibits the more how unsafe, as the mode of obtaining
239
ministers of the Church, will be this practice of leaving the people to
choose among rival competitors. I need not allude to so plain a
matter as that, either when the presentee is appointed to preach, or
when there is to be a ' preaching match' between rival candidates,
the people may be misled by sermons being preached, either wholly
or partially, not the composition of the preacher. The nobleman
I have referred to mentioned one case where a Crown presentee had
obtained great credit on this trial; but as he had chosen unluckily to
take his sermon from a very popular, though recent volume, which had
found its way already to Scotland, (a volume of Mr. Melvill's sermons)
the plagiarism was detected, I believe, by a neighbouring clergyman
who was present, and on the deception being stated in bar of his settle
ment at a subsequent stage, he ultimately withdrew. I need not advert
to such an occurrence, which, as Lord Moncreiff says, may be easily and
more dexterously managed. But laying it out of view, can it be said
that selection by congregations at large, in all parts of the country —
in all parishes, without reference to the state of the population — can be
taken as a safe mode of nomination .''
Most certainly there is not one of the arguments for the Veto scheme
which supports such a notion, — and the only question is, whether the
theory previously formed of the manner in which the Veto would work
can be relied on, or whether the actual effect of the measure will not,
and has not, led to the people obtaining practically their choice, either
by a free selection, or out of a list of candidates appointed to preach
before them : — that is to say, whether it has not produced results against
which its framers anxiously wished to guard the Church, and which
the measure was not intended to produce.
Cases soon occurred which marked the resolution of the people to
use the Veto in the way in which those who opposed the change had
predicted must infallibly be the result, and which amply illustrated the
manner in which irresponsible power on any subject of Interest, when
entrusted to the people, will be employed. In the course of mentioning
these cases, illustrations will occur of the interference of members of
Presbytery during vacancies, in a way which will operate most unfa
vourably both on the respect for the clerical character, on the nomina
tion of ministers, and the usefulness of the Church.
The parish of Logic Easter became vacant in the beginning of ] 837.
The patron, Mr. Hay M'Kenzle of Cromarty, most anxious to find an
acceptable person, and knowing well the power with which the people
were armed, applied to the Presbytery to allow the ' intended presen-
' tee' to preach, that he might ascertain whether he was acceptable be
fore presenting him. In the meantime it appeared that the people,
knowing that they could carry their point, ' applied to a minister to
' accept of the charge,' which he ' did, without any reference to the
' patron at all, and actually before the parish was declared vacant.'
Those who applied to this individual to accept the parish declared that
they would have no other. The Individual applied to was a neighbour
ing clergyman. He agreed to take the parish if the people gave him
240
the call. Thus the parish was disposed of by the people without any
application to the patron whatever. The patron then wrote to the Pres
bytery, stating all these facts, and proposing that the people should
have their choice of five clergymen, whom he named, tried and known
already in other charges, and of the highest character.
A meeting was held of heritors and communicants, when the patron's
proposal of giving the parish a list of five clergymen of approved talents
and character, out of which to choose, was taken into consideration.
But the session and majority of those summoned to the meeting de
clared that they had no intention of accepting any of the five gentle
men — ' their minds being already and determinately mad6 up, to make
' choice of no other' than the individual whom they named, and to whom
they had offered the parish.
Lord Brougham, well aware that such is the necessary result of the
measure, put, in the course of his opinion, the question as to the Veto
thus, — ' Well, say the congregation, whoever you choose shall be the
' man, upon this only trifling condition, that you must choose no other
' person except the man whom we choose. Who is the chooser there.''
' 1 think the second person is the chooser rather than the first.'
The patron very properly then presented a gentleman of unquestion
able character and qualifications. It turned out, that in this parish,
so burning with zeal for the nomination of their minister, and which.
had been previously filled by a most exemplary person, that there was
a roll only of seventeen communicants, of whom, according to the pre
vious intimation of their resolution, thirteen vetoed the presentee.
All these persons, who had thus fixed, in the first instance, upon an
other man, who had declared they would have no other, and some of
whom even repeated this openly to the Presbytery, when they gave their
veto, still took the declaration that they were actuated solely by a con
scientious regard to their spiritual interests.
As an illustration of what will go on in such cases, it appeared when
the dissents were taken, that one name had been inserted as part of
the completed Roll signed by the deceased incumbent, but above the
deceased's signature, and that this person's name had actually been In
serted by another clergyman, a member of Presbytery, after the death
of the deceased, by whom the Roll had been made up and signed. It
was said that the person had been in fact a communicant, though his
name had never been inserted. But this was of little moment, for the
rule is precise as to the completed roll of communicants, which had been
regularly signed by the deceased clergymaiu- and the party came for
ward to give his dissent without notice from himself or the member of
Presbytery, of this Irregular proceeding. The handwriting having
been remarked, the fact was discovered, and his veto could not be
taken. But this is a curious illustration of the extent to which the In
terest and the interference of members of Presbytery, the adjoining
clergymen, may be carried in the preparation for a veto, and of the
manner to which they may interfere.
In this case it thus appeared, beyond all doubt, that the presentee
was vetoed because the people had fixed upon and were determined lo
241
have another individual, and no one else; and that this was openly
stated, according to the admission of the Presbytery.
The Presbytery, startled by so striking an abuse of the Veto, took the
very strong step, quite incompetent under the Veto law, of allowing to
the presentee a proof of this caballing and combination for an undue pur
pose, though without deciding what should be the effect oi such facts.
That this was quite incompetent under the Veto law \*as very plain.
But no proper appeal was taken against the deliverance of the Presby
tery ; and the General Assembly, ' without pronouncing any opinion as
' to this sentence,' found that it had become in this case final, and that it
could not now be recalled, and that the investigation therefore must
proceed.* That some notion may be formed of the scenes which take place in
country districts, in consequence of this most anomalous and indecorous
and undignified proceeding for a church to adopt, of taking the veto or
dissents of the people, I may quote the statement of the Presbytery it
self as to what occurred in the parish church when the Veto was taken.
When some of the people openly declared, in giving their veto, that
they would only have the man they had fixed upon, the agent of the
patron and presentee insisted that the Presbytery should record these
declarations. The Presbytery, avowing themselves most friendly to the Veto, but
startled by so very glaring an abuse of it, had proposed to do this, when,
as they state, a scene of the greatest violence and indecency took place
in theChurch. One of their own number, as they stated In their
printed papers to the Assembly, harangued in the Church, and in the
presence of the people, in the most violent terms, against this proposal —
denied that any avowal of motives could affect the validity of the dis
sent, ' and even illustrated these doctrines in terms the most outrage-
' ous, and which suggested to an excited multitude the possibility, if
* The investigation ended in the result which might have been anti
cipated. The facts were fully proved — the letters passing between the
elders and the neighbouring minister, by which the latter accepted the
offer of the parish from the former, the resolution at the meeting re
ferred to, and the declarations by the dissenters, were proved. But the
Presbytery found, and rightly, under the Veto law, that the parties had
committed no illegal act, and that the Veto must take effect. Consis
tently with the Veto law, no other decision could have been pro
nounced by the Church Court. A bad motive is no ground for dis-
, allowing the dissent of any man, — and for the most conclusive of all
reasons, because it is incompetent under the Veto law to inquire into
the motives which prompt to the exercise of a right, for the use of
which the party is not accountable to any one. The patron of Logie
Easter has been obliged to give up all the gentlemen whom he ori
ginally proposed, and the people have at last concurred in ehe choice
of another, after the parish has been vacant nearly two years and a half
242
' not the propriety of escaping injury,^ by treating with insult or vlo-
' lence such as entertained different sentiments from him. For in-
' stance, ' Prove them all rogues,' said he. ' What then ? I defy you
" to refuse taking their declaration.' ' Supposing you refuse taking
" their declaration, what then ? I defy you to cram Mr. Macbride
" down the people of Logic's throat, without the sword and bayonet.''
" That may do for Ireland, but it will scarcely yet do for the Presby-
" tery of Tain.' ' Bad as we are, you'll not get military in Scotland
" to act for you. You must look elsewhere for them.' On a member
' getting up to check such improper and exciting language, he was re-
' ceived by a general hiss from the Church gallery, when the said ap-
' pellant exclaimed, ' Silence ! I am ashamed of you ; if there is any
" more improper behaviour in the house of God, I'll do nothing more
" for you. Wait till you go out, and do then as you please ;' and lest
' this significant language should be misunderstood by an illiterate and
' poor people, he repeated in Gaelic, ' Do as you like when you get to
" the outside of the door.' "
The Presbytery solemnly stated on record, that they had experienced
threats of personal violence.
Such are the scenes which will mark the operation of this objection
able measure. In this sort of appeal to popular votes, which the Veto
is, the members of Presbytery will often, as an inevitable result of
the interest which (it may be, from good motives at first) they may
take in the matter, become as excited as the other parties concerned.
The whole affair will assume a complexion most injurious to the inter
ests of religion, and degrading to the character and functions and office
of the ministry.
I shall not go over the details of the cases on the lists of a later
date than April 1837. After that period the effect of the measure in
compelling patrons to leave the choice to the congregation, or to ap
point at once the persons the latter had previously fixed upon, has
been so notorious that no one can dispute the fact. It is more im
portant to shew how soon the measure began to operate in the way
which was not intended or contemplated by its framers. It is obvious
to every one that the effect of the measure must yearly increase ;
for every one instance leads to additional cases of the people requiring
the selection to be left to them, which they have the power to enforce.-
Up to the period I mention, (spring of 1837), '^^ number of cases
in which the patron had not ventured to select, but had given the people
their choice, or appointed the individual they chose previously to fix up
on, amounted to fifty-one cases out of a total of ninety four vacancies.
In fifteen other cases there were active measures taken in the parishes to
secure the election and nomination of the minister, although the num
bers were not such as to effect the object. The same steps may have
been taken in other instances of the lists I refer to ; but in fifteen they
were so marked and decided as to become publicly known in the neigh
bourhood. In many of the cases in whioh the choice of the minister had been
243
left to the people, the majority in favour of the candidate chosen was
very small ; and It is well known that in some of these cases the
parish have not been satisfied with the result of their choice, and both
among the minority and majority dissatisfaction Is well known to exist,
which probably would never have occurred If the choice had not been
the result of competition, and If the people had not been taught to con
sider themselves entitled and qualified to sit In judgment on the quali
fications of their pastors.
The proportion of cases, in which opposition was excited to the no
mination of the patron, when he did not think proper to ' abandon' his
right of selection, was In 1 837 greater than in 1836, according to Mr.
Dunlop's account of the year from 1835. The proportion in which op
position was created rose in 1837 to one half, (as nearly as may be,)
viz. 8 out of 19, — while the proportion of cases in which the patronage
was ' abandoned' to the people had more than doubled.
During the last two years the proportion of cases has greatly increas
ed, in which the patrons, both the Crown and private patrons, have
been compelled to abandon the patronage to the people ; and the evils
of popular election, or of a choice out of a list given to the people, have
been exhibited in more marked characters.
Each year the resolution on the part of the people to claim and as
sume the power which the Veto law practically gives them, has been
displayed more openly, and in a more decided manner. In one case,
because the Crown did not present the person applied for, the elders of
the parish, ' deputed,' they said, ' by all the male heads of families,'
actually announced in a letter to Her Majesty's Secretary of State (Lord
John Russell) that they had determined to veto the presentee before they
heard him preach. In some cases in which the Secretary of State has not
given effect to the first hints which were given to him, the presentees have
been rejected in order to enforce due attention to the growing resolution
of the people to require a free and unrestricted choice. Thus in one
country parish, so early as December 1835, or January 1836, the mi
nister of which was removed to a town charge, he wrote to Lord John
Russell, Intimating that he would not have removed. If he had not re
ceived a pledge, as he termed It, that the people he left should be al
lowed to choose his successor. Lord John Russell did not admit either
this construction of what had passed, or the right to dictate to the
Crown. The presentee, as might have been expected, after this com
munication from the clergyman who was leaving them, was vetoed, and
the choice was then left to the parish.
It is unnecessary to multiply instances of the effect of the measure
in producing popular election, or in compelling the patron at least to
submit a list of candidates, out of whom the people, if they choose to
take any, may select. The practice is rapidly becoming very general.
As might have been anticipated, the scenes accompanying the nu
merous cases of popular competition which have taken place, are such
as attend every secular canvass and competition for office, in the dis
posal of which popular interest is felt. Q
244
I shall quote some passages from a statement compiled with great
care from the information of clergymen and gentlemen in the neigh
bourhood, and the accuracy of which I believe can be most completely
verified in every particular, by reference to individual cases. Many
such indeed are mentioned in detail, so as to support every portion of
the general statement.
*' Where there is competition for the favour of the parish, all
' measures are pursued with much greater Intensity of feeling, and
' strenuousness of purpose. There is still more urgent need for
' haste, if contending claimants are expected to appear.-)- Meetings
' have been summoned, and individuals have been active in seek-
' ing pledges while the incumbent was lying on his sick-bed, or was
' merely declining under the infirmities of age. Where there is no
' such previous warning, no time may be lost in making up for it ;
' in a case of very recent occurrence, the sun had not set on the
' day on which an incumbent died in the prime of life, before agents
* were in full activity in the parish, advantage being thus taken of a
' near relative, who, of course, was precluded from coming so early to
' the field. And who does not recollect the case of Dron, in which the
' most offensive scenes were enacted on the day and on the occasion of
' the minister's funeral .'' Immediately, then, on the occurrence of a
' vacancy, a parish is scoured and canvassed by every man who thinks
' that he himself or a friend may have, in the chapter of accidents, a
' chance of success. The day of the funeral arrives, and the parish as-
' semble, but not, it may well be said, under the impression that they
* Church Review, Nos. for April and May 1837. Having ascer
tained the name of the gentleman by whom this statement was com
piled, a friend of mine has gone over the letters and Information from
which it was compiled, and has ascertained that it is drawn from infor
mation furnished by gentlemen of the highest respectability, and pos
sessing undoubted means of information.
¦f- It will be useful to refer here to the language employed in the
Pastoral Admonition which the Assembly were obliged to issue within
a year after the Veto came into operation, and which is annually re
peated. The Assembly, in that remarkable document, declare that the
Veto was intended only to give the people a 'negative against the intru-
' sion of any minister,' whom as Christians they thought unfit, but ' not
' to confer any rights of a different nature ; and any attempts to wrest
' it to other purposes must defeat its object.' This Is a most material
admission, when contrasted with its undoubted effects, and with the
objects upon which those who originally did not think it went far enough,
have now taken up the Veto. ' All canvassing and caballing, therefore,
' for obtaining the appointment of a particular person to be minister,
' and all combination beforehand for that purpose, are inconsistent with
' the principle oi the act.' Dr. Chalmers's expressions, also, in his note,
are very- emphatic as to the scenes which he plainly had in view in
using them.
245
are paying a tribute to the memory of the deceased ; of him they are
forgetful, and, whether they will or not, their thoughts are full of the
contending applications made to supply his place ; passions have been
already roused in favour of one or against another candidate ; leagues
have been entered into to support one party, or to counterwork some
other ; and in regard to an office which should be free from all such
dealings, and especially at such a time, it is mournful for those pre-
.sent to witness, that around the remains of a minister of peace, the
worst features are displayed that characterise the lowest political contest.
' Such is the commencement of the vacancy ; and is it to be supposed
that matters Improve as the time advances ? Excitement spreads its
contagious influence to those who once kept themselves beyond its
sphere — those who were first in motion wax warmer In the strife — every
motive is brought into play that is likely to have any influence — fe
male energy is aroused — landlords address their tenants, and tenants
their servants — provincial lawyers are employed to canvass all — by
night and day the work is prosecuted — the cottage door is assailed
during the hours of rest — intemperance is purposely produced that ad
vantage may be taken of it — deceit is practised by one party, and dis
simulation by another — and, perplexed and harassed by conflicting
influences, persons have signed petitions for more candidates than one.
To crown the whole, the pulpit has been rendered subservient to the
canvass, and the solemn services of the sanctuary profaned as an oc
casion of promoting the preacher's success. No one of these offensive
features has been put down without Its having been exhibited, in cases
of settlement since the Veto was passed.'
Again — ' Is the person chosen under these circumstances always sa
tisfactory to the parish ? It would be marvellous if it were so. Spe
cific instances we leave our readers to recognise among the cases since
the Veto. In election, the more respectable of permanent Inhabitants
have found themselves outvoted. A committee of managers have out
witted or dissatisfied their constituents. Where there are several can
didates (as in Falkirk, Shotts, &c.) nearly equally balanced, the
successful one has but a minority for his friends: even he who was
thought at first to possess all perfection Is soon discovered to abound
In blemishes, and finds, perhaps, that his best support will not be
given by those who were most zealous for his success. Here are no
favourable circumstances for the entrance of a minister, and no cheer
ing prospect for his future usefulness. Yet so it must often be, while
such a mode of entrance Is suffered to endure.
' And is the prospect of peace in the parish likely to Improve ? So
far as experience of the Veto goes, the cases are in proportion more
numerous in which- matters have Improved after open opposition,
than after such popular elections. In these the dissatisfied sections
have sometimes (and in towns only could they do it) built a new
Church for their defeated candidate : the keen feelings that have been
aroused do not quietly subside, but more readily pass into those of an
opposite kind, the parties merely changing sides, but preserving their
asperities ; an appetite unboundedly gratified during the canvass is
246
* restless, because it meets with no food for indulgence ; the unhappy
' circumstances created by the contest do not soon pass away ; in one
' case, in which a session was dissolved in the conflict, no session has
' yet been formed again ; and if we may judge from the experience of
' former times, where the short life of the Veto alone stops our calcula-
' tlons, we may expect that these election feuds will be frequently hand-
' ed down from father to son with that zeal which is shewn about the
« less creditable, as often as about the more important matters of reli-
' glous controversy.'
Again — ' Inflammatory placards, and declamatory harangues at pub-
' lie meetings, are among the more innocent measures resorted to ; and
' when angry feelings have been awakened, the continued application
' of these means serves to keep alive the flame. Besides these, bribery,
' intimidation, intoxication, and the like, are the natural means for sti-
' mulatlng the worst passions of members of society — only not the
' worst, because not wholly excommunicated : and these accordingly
' have been abundantly resorted to. Even on the day of moderation
' of the call, persons have been brought forward on that solemn occasion
' under the influence of intoxicating liquors ; and having ourselves
' witnessed the fact in one case, we can easily credit what we have
' heard regarding others.*
' What can be the issue of proceedings such as these, of which we
' have given but a sample out of what has come to our knowledge, but
' conduct the most inconsistent in itself, and the most humiliating for
' the people ? Dissentients have afterwards admitted that they were
' Ignorant of the contents of the papers which had been given to them
' to tender on dissenting. They have dissented against the very indi-
' viduals whom they formerly favoured. In this respect the case of
' Urr was even stronger than that of Kirkmichael already referred to,
' many of those who had signed a petition for Mr. Burnside having
' dissented against him. In Lethendie, after a majority had petitioned
' for Mr. Clark, a majority dissented against him, forty out of the fifty-
' three being his own petitioners : in Mortlack fifty of Mr. Cruick-
' shank's petitioners, in like manner, dissented against him.
As might be expected, the parties interested soon resort to the aldj
of law-agents, in whose hands the contest assumes all the charac
ters of a secular canvass. ' To the activity of law-agents. Trinity
' Gask, Auchterarder, Dron, Urr, Kirkmichael, Marykirk, and Mort-
' lach, bear ample testimony ; and so might Kilrenny also have done,
' if the people had availed themselves of Mr. Andrew Johnston's offer
' of the services of Mr. J. B. : and to this day the outstanding accounts
' still due in some of these parishes afford a continued reminiscence of
' the scenes that were enacted. By means of such agency, persons are
' instigated to bind themselves by solemn obligations, and brought for-
' ward in organized order, each with his several ticket previously left at
* Lamentable as the fact Is, it is impossible to doubt the occurrences
last mentioned in this paragraph.
247
« his dwelling to remind him of his duty, and to direct him under what
« leader's section he Is to marshal himself; — and is every one of the
' persons thus arrayed to be held " actuated solely by a conscientious re-
" gard to the spiritual interests of himself or the congregation ?." It
' seems it must be so, for the act allows no proof that he is not, and af-
' fords no remedy though the fact were proved,'
In many of the cases the parties did not hesitate to declare that they
had no objections personally to the presentee, but were resolved to ex
ercise their rights, or to obtain another individual. ' In Auchterarder,
' where so great a majority dissented, the presentee was on the whole
' well received by the great body of those whom he visited immediately
' before the moderation of the call ; and some of them " declared to
" him, that they had nothing against him, but wanted to try the ques-
" tion of their right to keep out a presentee." The same motive, we
' rather think, appeared in the meetings and cavillings that took place
' In DIrleton, where a " popular" neighbouring minister was the ob-
' ject of opposition. In Kirkmichael, It could not be objection to the
' presentee, for he had just before been selected as assistant ; but the
' minister having died, a presentation was issued in favour of this same
' individual, and the parish was immediately roused to think that rights
« which the Church had given them had been invaded, and numbers ac-
' cordingly bound themselves by solemn vows " not to allow the law
" which gave the rights to be a dead letter." Neither in Dunkeld was
' it any objection to the presentee. In Nigg, the former minister hav-
' ing gone to Glasgow, wrote to Lord John Russell, reminding him that
' he would not have left the parish without a pledge, as he called it,
' from his Lordship, that his forsaken flock should be allowed to choose
' their next pastor. Lord John took a different view of the matter, but
' the people were persuaded by Mr. Lewis Rose that they had been de-
' prived of what he had secured for them, and the unfortunate presentee
' felt the effects of this accordingly. In Marykirk, and in Monifelth,
' We believe, also, it Was openly declared by some of the dissentients, at
' the moderation of the call, that they had nothing against the pre-
' sentee, and that their reason for dissenting was because they had not
' had the choice.'
The regulations proposed in some subsequent year after the general
Veto law was passed, declare that no one who petitioned for the pre
sentee shall be allowed to give his dissent. There may be justice in
this rule ; but It is somewhat arbitrary, on the principles on which the
Veto proceeds, and somewhat inconsistent. An individual may have
been applied for from his character — he is presented — the people then
hear him, and do not like him. Why are those who petitioned not to
be allowed to dissent, and reject him as much as the others ? The re
gulation was Intended to prevent abuses ; but it is manifestly most ar
bitrary and indefensible, according to the principle of the act. But
above all, it Is a plain admission that the people have no right in truth
in the matter — that there is no such thing as this fundamental law —
that the privilege is a mere matter of expediency and regulation, and
that the practice of appealing to fixed laws of the Church is idle.
248
As an Illustration of many of the facts which are contained in the above
statement, I shall take another case, which happened in the subsequent
year, as the facts were publicly stated in the same periodical.pubhcation
at the time, — and the accuracy of which, the information of gentlemen
in the neighbourhood given to myself, completely confirms, I quote
the statement with the less reserve, because I have always understood
that no blame whatever was attached personally to any of the clergymen
who were candidates, on account of any of the proceedings which oc
curred. The scenes referred to arose entirely out of the excitement and
keenness created by the contest, and in no degree from any conduct per
sonally on the part of the candidates.
' VVhen the parish of St. Martin's became vacant by the death of
' Mr, Currer, Mr. Fox Maule, then member for the county, addressed
' a letter to the heads of families in the parish, acquainting them with
' the course he meant to pursue in filling up the vacancy. He in-
' formed them, that should four-fifths of their body agree in selecting a
' qualified person to be their future pastor, before the 10th of July,
' that he would recommend the Secretary of State to present their no-
' minee to the vacant parish. Mr. Maule's letter made it necessary to
' hold a public meeting in the parish. Mr. Nairne of Dunslnane pre-
' sided at the meeting, which was held in the Church ; the result of
' which was, that Messrs M'Cheyne, Dundee — Miller, Perth — and Ait-
' ken, Auchterarder, were requested to come forward as candidates.
' To this list Mr. Liddel of Edinburgh was afterwards added. The
' two first declined preaching as candidates — they refused to enter the
' cock-pit of competition, and were therefore heard by deputation.
' Messrs Aitken and Liddel preached in the parish church of Cargill,
' towhlch place the parishioners were invited by hand-bills.' It is then
stated that two parties were regularly organized throughout the parish,
¦with constant canvassing. ' Ere the time allowed by Mr. Maule
' should elapse, it became necessary to hold another meeting, for the
' purpose of ascertaining which of the candidates was to be applied for.
' This meeting was so tumultuous and disorderly, and the language
' used during the wrangling that took place so unseemly and scandal-
' ous, that Mr. Nairne left the chair in disgust. He was speedily
' succeeded, however, by one, we suppose, of taste less fastidious, and
' of ears less polite. Mr. Nairne found himself, we fancy, very
' much in the situation of the conjuror, who raised a spirit which he could
' not allay. It required, in fact, now, a person of much more compre-
' henslve tastes than Mr. Nairne to guide and sanction the meeting.
' Liar, and other opprobrious names, resounded in the house of God,
' which, for the time, seemed to be turned Into a den of thieves. It was
' at this meeting that a most extraordinary charge was brought against
' one of the candidates, Mr .' I need not quote this part of
the statement, for it was a very wicked and cruel calumny against a
respectable clergyman. ' When the vote was taken, it was found that
' he had nearly double the number of votes of any other of the candl-
' dates, almost one-half of the voters being In his favour. This did
' not, however, answer that criterion of concurrence which Mr. Maule
249
' had fixed for the parish, and after certain doings, unnecessary to be
' developed, a leet was finally fixed upon, consisting of Messrs, Aitken,
' Ritchie, and Rutherford, who preached in the church of St, Martin's
' as candidates, by presentation of the Presbytery.
' The roll of male heads of families in communion with the Church
' not having been made up the previous year, required at the time to
' be adjusted ; and for this purpose, Mr. Cralk of Scone was specially
' appointed by the Presbytery. The claims for enrolment were so nu-
' merous, and many of them of so equivocal a kind, and the objections
' brought forward by the contending parties were urged with such vi-
' gour, that the kirk-session might be compared to a registration court
' held on the eve of a contested election, were not the comparison too
' favourable to the Ecclesiastical Court. Mr. Cralk found himself un-
' fit' for the task imposed on him; and the Presbytery Itself was ob-
' llged to undertake the work of completing the roll. It was then found
' that Messrs. Aitken and Ritchie were the only candidates about whom
' there was any division of opinion. Two parties were formed ; and, on
' both sides, most unscrupulous were the means adopted to secure a ma-
' jority of the voters. The " heats" in the parish became so Intense,
' that the neighbouring parishes of Collace and Cargill caught fire, and
' increased the conflagration. The " differences" became so malignant,
' that people from a distance were drawn into the vortex of contention.
' Agents from Collace and Cargill perambulated the parish, and can-
' vassed the voters.'
Instances were then stated of the excitement which prevailed, and of
very extraordinary instances of the asperity and keenness with which the
contest was carried on. Public houses were kept open by individuals
taking an active part for one candidate or another; and the excitement
became such, that two police officers were sent to the parish before
the day for this sort of Selection came on. At last it was thought
to be necessary that a civil magistrate should be present when the
votes were to be given. ' While the vote was being taken, several
' stratagems developed themselves. We may give the following as a
' specimen. An old man had been sent to a distance with a letter,
' which letter contained directions to retain him until the election was
' over. A messenger was immediately despatched by the opposite party
' to bring him ; but not being found, his daughter was admitted in his
' stead. In giving her vote, she, in the estimation of one party, acquitted
' herself like a man ; and it not being a case in which the Procurator-
' Fiscal felt himself entitled to interfere, her vote was taken down as
' that of the male head of a family ! But enough of such sickening
' details has been given ; and we need only farther add, that at the close
' of the meeting, Mr. Aitken was found to have a small majority in his
' favour. The opposite party clamorously maintained, that this was
' not the case, and insisted that unqualified persons had been allowed
' to vote for Mr. Aitken, — an assertion, however, that was manfully
' contradicted in the public journals at the time.' The result gave only
a small majority to one of the candidates, and of votes so unsatisfactory
that the Government appointed the other.
250
It is in reference to this and other cases, in which the occurrences,
both during the vacancy and at the veto, have been equally notorious
and painful, that Dr. Chalmers, I presume, remarks on the probability
of the parish, during a vacancy, exhibiting the scenes of a political elec
tion — and that he proposes, either to disfranchise a whole parish, or to
disallow the votes of all persons whose conduct, in the opinion of the
Church, ought to have prevented them taking the solemn declaration,
that they acted conscientiously, and from no improper motives.
He is aware that great limitations of the Veto are necessary for the
good of the Church.
But, then, be It remembered, that such limitations are wholly in
consistent with the principle declared by the Veto law of 1 834, to be a
fundamental law of the Church, and again reasserted by the Assembly
of this year. That principle truly is a right to reject the person by
the people, if not agreeable to their will. It has no reference to any
opinion or inquiry or judgment of the Church Courts. On the con
trary, it is the WILL of the people that must prevail ; and the principle
contended for is, a right, therefore, to reject — an absolute and peremp
tory right.
The instant that you attempt to limit this — the instant that you
give the Presbytery a right to investigate into motives and reasons —
to disallow votes — to judge of the propriety of the rejection, and of the
sufficiency or fairness of the motives which have brought it about,—
the instant any one such limitation is acknowledged to be proper, then
the principle of the Veto law is abandoned. It must, in that case, be
admitted, that the will of the congregation does not mean that, which
is assumed in the whole argument as to the principle of non-intrusion.
The right to reject is not adhered to if any limitations on the Veto
are admitted, and the other principle of the duty and functions of
Presbyteries to judge and to decide for themselves, is brought into
play, and is acknowledged to be at once necessary and paramount in
authority. If, then. Dr. Chalmers admits the necessity and competency oi the
important restrictions or checks which he has now brought fiwward on
the Veto, the measure so altered may be good or bad — but it is fiinda-
mentally different from the law passed in 1834, and ratified by Pres
byteries — which asserts and gives to the people the power of a Veto as
a right to reject, — in acknowledgment too, of an irresponsible and
absolute right.
Now, surely we ought to know what the principle is, which is said
to be one ¦ of the dearest principles of the Church.'
No two things can be so different, as, (1.) the right to reject under
the actual Veto law, to which the Assembly adhere ; and, (2.) a power
to be exercised under the controul of Inquiry, judgment, and decision
by the Church Courts — under controul lo the extent even of allow
ing a whole parish to be disfranchised, as having proved itself generally
to be unfit to exercise the power. The ' will' of the people, on the
latter theory, assumes a totally different meaning. And the doctrine
251
as to the non-intrusion principle will become altogether different, ac
cording as you adopt the one view or the other.
Dr. Chalmers advocates apparently one view, or rather, I should say,
practically admits it, in direct opposition to his argument, by acknow
ledging the necessity of restrictions on the Veto : — The Committee
maintain the other view.
But each equally appeal to the ' fundamental principle of non-in-
* trusion :' — Although, in the latter view, the people have an absolute and
unlimited and indefeasible right ; in the former, there would be really
no right at all, but only a privilege, which is to be subject to any limi
tations and restraints which the Church may from time to time judge ex
pedient, and which, at all events, they do not mean to entrust to the peo
ple without great restraints.
Strange, that even now, in the mind of the author of the measure,
the principle should not be fixed ! Or, is it that Dr. Chalmers never
intended to go beyond his own motion of 1833 — that he saw the ob
jections to the law as passed in 1834, and wishes to restrain, alter, and
modify the latter, so as to make out of the two something different
from either, but less fearful in consequences than the irresponsible
power, acknowledged by the act of 1834, has proved In his conviction
to be ?
The instances of interference by the members of Presbytery, which
appear In the course of the accounts given in the proceedings which
have occurred in vacant parishes, are numerous. Many of them have
been noticed in the country newspapers. In many cases the clergy of
the Presbytery and of the neighbourhood have been mixed up with
the proceedings in a way which was most unfortunate. Their inter
ference is always wrong. Good they seldom will do When they at
tempt to enforce moderation, their interference Is repudiated as an
undue encroachment on the rights of the people. The regulations
of Assembly gave them encouragement to Interfere to prevent unreason
able opposition to worthy presentees. If attempted, how is that treated ?
In the case of the parish of Mamoch, (adverted to in another place),
the parishioners complained, that when the Presbytery met to receive
the dissents, the moderator of the Presbytery, from the pulpit, gave
the people an address on the act of Assembly as to the Veto, which
they described as laudatory of patrons and patronage, and adverse
to any interference by the people. This may or may not be true, or
may or may not have been proper, in the circumstances of the parish'.
The presumption is, that it was a very suitable admonition to the
people. But such interference is inevitable, from the nature of the case.
It may prove insufficient to Induce the people to receive and acqui
esce in an appointment, of the propriety of which the Presbytery are
thoroughly satisfied ; but it will be all powerful to create and call into
action opposition, easily enough created when the people are to enjoy
an absolute and irresponsible power, of the exercise of which they are
declared to be themselves the absolute judges.
252
The strain oi such interference may be collected from the sermon, in
the case of Trinity Gask, preached by a member of Presbytery during
the vacancy, and immediately after the presentation was issued. The
sermon was on 1 Peter 11. 16. After some introductory remarks, the
preacher went on, — ' It seemeth to me that, at this particular season,
' the subject in our text is suitable to your circumstances. It having
' pleased the Master of the vineyard to call away to his account your late
' pastor, you are now to be called upon to perform your duty In refer-
' ence to the appointment and call of a new pastor. On the manner In
' which you discharge this duty, the salvation of your own souls, and of
' those of your children and children's children, may be suspended ; you
' are placed in new circumstances ; you may have a difficult and painful
' duty to perform ; many eyes will be upon you, and perhaps your con-
' duct may be followed by the most important and extensive conse-
' quences. Let us, therefore, with humble and earnest supplications for
' the guidance of the Spirit and Word of God, attend to the directions
' In our text, which seem to be so very applicable to your present cir-
' cumstances : " As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of mall-
" clousness, but as the servants of God."
' There are two things set before us in this verse very worthy of our
' attention, especially In the times in which our lot is cast : liberty,
' AND THE right USE OF IT '
Liberty was then divided into spiritual, civil, and religious liberty,—-
on each of which remarks were made. Religious liberty, — or ' liberty
' in the Church' — was said not to be perfect in any Church.
' If, therefore, liberty be to be free from every hinderance to serving
' God, religious liberty is to be free from every church ordinance, as to
' doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, which is forbidden or
' not authorized by the Bible, and not to be hindered from serving God,
' and seeking his grace by every one of his instituted ordinances. So
' far as this freedom is not to be found in any church, so far it deprives
' its members of their rightful religious liberty. A Christian has a right
' to wait upon every ordinance of Christ in the manner he has pre-
' scribed ; and he is not bound to subject himself to, or approve of, any
' ordinance not appointed by Christ; and he is bound to disapprove,
' and, in his place, testify against every thing in the visible Church
' contrary to the will of Christ. If any church professes and teaches
' error, it so far deprives its members of the liberty to hear the voice and
' truth of Christ ; if it prescribes modes of worship not instituted, it
' deprives them of their liberty to worship God acceptably, and seek his
' grace in the way he hath promi.sed to bestow it ; if it deprives them of
' the power of performing any duty or obeying any command, say the
' command " beware of false teachers, which come unto you in sheep's
" clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves ; by their fruits ye
" shall know them ;" then so far it deprives them of their liberty to obey
' the will of Christ. Only a church that is in all respects according to
' the will and appointment of Christ, affords to its members perfect reli-
' gious liberty, and such a church never has existed yet.'
' We now advert.
253
' Second, To the use of liberty, having seen the nature of liberty and
' its three chief kinds. Our text having reminded believers that they
' are free, gives them three hints as to their use of liberty, " using your
" liberty not for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." '
' 1. Liberty is to be used. Liberty is an invaluable blessing; it
' comprehends all others. It puts man in a situation to attain the
' chief end of his being, which is, " to glorify (rod, and to enjoy him
" for ever." To procure and to proclaim liberty, Christ came, and suf-
' fered, and died. The preaching of his gospel is the sounding of the
' trumpet of the jubilee : " Liberty to the captive, the opening of the
" prison doors to them that are bound." Liberty is the blessing Christ
' promises to believers : " Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
" make you free." " If the Son make you free, ye shall be free indeed,"
' &c. It was by the promise of liberty that false teachers allured their
' disciples : " While they promise to you liberty, they themselves are
" the servants of corruption." Liberty Is the watchword of the patriot,
' the battle-cry of the soldier. For liberty the martyr has died. Ll-
' berty distinguishes the free man from the slave, the civilized from the
' barbarian, the saint from the infidel, the angel from the devil, heaven
' from hell. The devil enslaves ; Christ makes free. Liberty, then,
' or freedom to serve God, is to be used, and never to be sold, or bar-
' tered, or betrayed, or lost. " Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty
" wherewith Christ hath made you free," said the Apostle to the Gala-
' tians, when certain persons sought to impose upon their church the
' repealed ordinances of the ceremonial law, " and be not again entan-
' gled with the yoke of bondage," Gal. v. 1.' Then follow other remarks
in the same strain.
' And believers .^re to use their religious liberty.' Instances are then
quoted, including the times of persecution in the Scotch Church.
' If they made such sacrifices to purchase for us the religious liberty
' we enjoy, in a Church which has Christ as the Supreme and only
' Head, and has such scriptural doctrine, worship, discipline, and go-
' vernment, will ye not, my brethren, " contend earnestly" for the pos-
' session of these ordinances among yourselves and your children, admi-
' nistered in purity and power by a pastor after God's heart, who may
' feed you with knowledge and understanding.? If God in his provi-
' dence has been pleased to add to your religious liberty, so that you are
' now able to obey the commandments, " try the spirits whether they
" be of God," 1 John iv. 1. " Beware of false prophets," Matt. vl. 15.
" Receive In the Lord such teachers as Epaphroditus with all gladness,
" and hold them in reputation," Phil. 11. 29. " I beseech you, bre-
" thren, ye know the house of Stephanas, that they have addicted
" themselves to the ministry of the saints, that ye submit yourselves un-
" to such, and to everyone that helpeth with us and laboureth," 1 Cor.
• xvi. 15, 16. I say, if God has been pleased to add to your liberty, so
' that you can forbid that any man be made your pastor, who is not
' qualified according to the rule of the Word of God, then, brethren,
' use this liberty, and use it boldly, and use it without flinching to the
' right hand or to the left, for fear or for favour ; for whosoever basely
254
' gives up his religious liberty, especially in so awfully important a
' point as this, is. at heart a Judas, who would sell his soul and his Sa-
' viour for a piece of money, or for something that will perish in the
' using, and perish with himself for ever. Fear not the face of man.
' Let no man make merchandise of your souls. Let no man trample up-
' on your liberty. " Give place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that
" the truth of the gospel may abide among you."
' But the apostle is taught by the Spirit to guard against the perver-
' sion of liberty, and the turning of the name of liberty into a covering
' and cloak, and pretence for maliciousness.' Then various warnings
are given against the abuse of civil or religious liberty.
' But, brethren, instead of dwelling upon the danger of making civil
' liberty a cloak for maliciousness, great and imminent as this danger is
' in our day, let us rather consider the sin and danger of turning reli-
' gious liberty into a cloak and mask for the indulgence of unholy feel-
' ings. And to speak at once to the point : — Suppose that, according
' to the existing law, one was to be proposed as pastor for your accept-
* ance or rejection, if you were to reject him from mortified pride, be-
' cause the proprietor did not hearken to your requests, or treated you
' haughtily, this would certainly be using- your liberty to reject the per-
' son proposed as a " cloak for your own maliciousness," &c.
' Brethren, bring no strange fire of maliciousness to mingle with the
' pure flame of zeal, for the honour of Christ, the good of souls, the
' peace of Sion, the prosperity of Christ's gospel, cause, and kingdom,
' here and elsewhere.
' Touch not the ark of God with the unhallowed hands of passion
' and pride. Remember the death of Korah and Uzzah ! If, afte*
« comparing the life and doctrine of such persons as may be proposed
' for your pastor with the standard of God's infallible Word, the great
' repository of all Church, law, and putting up earnest prayers fo^ the
' guidance of the Holy Spirit, yon be persuaded that such a man is not
' qualified, according to the Bible, to watch for your souls, use your 11-
' berty to prevent his being placed as pastor of this parish, and spare not
' trouble or expense, and fear not persecution in so doing. But who-
* ever proposes him, and in whatever spirit, if himself be a man of God,
' receive him as a gift of God, a pastor after his own heart, who shall
' feed you with knowledge and understauding. The law of honour,
' which is too often the law of Satan, would say. Be not trampled on
' by any man ; if he do not treat you well, defeat him if possible. But
' what says the law of God .? (See Rom. xii. I7 — 21.')
Again — ' And, especially, your religious liberty, prize it, and use it,
' and seek to extend it as the servants of God. Remember that your
« only supreme and infallible rule and law, as members of the Church
' of Christ, is the Word of God. Follow this rule then. Be faithful
' servants to your Master in heaven. Leave consequences to him. Do
' ye your commanded duty. Value a jireached Gospel as the highest
' earthly blessing. Count an unspirltual, and slothful, and faithless
' ministry as one of the worst curses you and your childten can suffer.
' Use every appointed and' legal mean of obtaining the Gospel' and a
255
' faithful ministry. Take heed that every step you take in this affair
' be according to the word and will of God, for the glory of Christ, and
' under the guidance of his Spirit. Seek that Christ may be glorified,
' and his Church edified. Plead his promises. Jer. 111. 15, " I will
" give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with
" knowledge and understanding,'" &c.
The extracts from the above sermon, will show how easily the subject
may be made the topic of most inflammatory discourses — tending to mis
lead and excite the minds of men. I do not say that this has often been
done as openly, and with as little dexterity to avoid reproach, as In the
above sermon. But Individuals, in whose competency to judge of the
objects of sermons I had perfect confidence, have frequently informed
me of the strain of sermons, particularly in some districts of the coun
try, whlph have been preached during vacancies. Various instances
have from time to time been publicly stated of such on different occa
sions. The known opinions of the preacher as a vehement enemy of
patronage, because unscriptural, and an encroachment on the rights
of the people in the Church of Christ, — and his known opinions on
the necessity of a call from the people. — his wishes and feelings on occa
sion of the vacancy, — these and many other circumstances make the
people attach importance to every expression ; and they are easily
led to believe (for the flattery is too congenial to the mind) that their
liberty in the Church should be manifested in showing, by the use of
their liberty, that they appreciate It, and are worthy of It.
I would ask every one to attend to the conduct which has been fre
quently displayed by members of Presbytery during vacancies, both in
the pulpit and by other interference, and to say whether he does not see
symptoms of a great change taking place in the relative position of the
Presbyteries to the people, in reference to the nomination of ministers, —
and a great change in the feelings of individuals as to the propriety of
interference. As yet no doubt there has been a certain degree of restraint. The
legality of the whole matter was disputed. But if the authority and
power of the Church are to be recognised in the way proposed, and
the Presbyteries to be entitled to say who is suitable and who not, an
opening will be afforded for still greater and more general interference.
Experience already shows how soon people may be familiarized with
an interference from which they had previously shrunk. Presbyteries
have done acts, as Presbyteries, to aid individuals, from which they
would have shrunk ten years ago. But when they are so mixed up
with the whole matter as to take part in receiving the dissents, and
have gone the length of breaking through the rule of the Church, by
allowing probationers to preach in a competition out of lists, which
is specially prohibited, — ruay, when they have allowed probationers,
(though against rule) to preach during the vacancy, in cases in which.
the patron intended to select, the very object, or at least the probable
effect of which, was to interest the parish in favour of others, — we may
easily see how individuals of ardent minds, full of the evils of patronage,
anxious to secure co-ptesbyters of the same views as themselves, — preachers
256
after their own standard, — preachers in whom they happen moreover to
have an interest, — will be led to take a part in a way most prejudicial
to the interests of parishes.
The interference of the neighbouring clergy is one of the effects of the
present system which is most to be deprecated.
In estimating the Injurious effects of such a system on the authority
of the clergymen of the Church, it would be a great mistake to confine
attention merely to the cases in which individuals have actually been
rejected, in consequence of the numbers who expressed their dissent
constituting a majority. Many cases have occurred in which, though
the number has not been such as to exclude the individual, yet it
has been ascertained that (from some cause or other — preference of
another individual — dislike of the mode in which the presentee was re
commended to the patron — or, perhaps, objection to the individual)
there existed a numerous class who had wished to exclude him from the
parish. But as the number Is short of the majority, no account whatever is
taken under the Veto law of this expression of opinion which the Church
itself has invited and courted — though it may be the opinion of the
most Important and intelligent persons in the parish. The Church has
adopted, for the decision of such a matter, the rule of numbers. It
makes a dissent of a majority, though but of one, conclusive to exclude.
The dissent of a number short but by one of majority, is, in itself, of
no avail, whatever may be the character and weight of that minority.
The individual must, in that case, be taken on trials, and, if he is
qualified, the mere dissent which has been expressed against his set
tlement is no longer to be taken into account.
But is that dissent of no moment or effect In regard to the individual's
Usefulness — his influence and character in the parish ? Is it nothino- that
the Church should thus invite an expression of objection and dissent,
which, though it may not be from numbers sufficient to reject, yet may
make public the opinions of a large proportion of the parish who wished to
keep the individual out ? Is that an expedient, a wise, a prudent intio-
duction to the settlement, (it may probably be), of many clergymen.'* The
feelings which led to the expression of dissent, if the Church did not
thus invite, nay provoke, its expression, might soon have died away, and
yielded to the influence of faithful and anxious labours. But such a
decided expression of opinion confirms the feelings, whatever they are,
in which that expression of dissent originated. It establishes a sort of
bar between the minister and those who have so expressed their opi
nions. Each party must feel the awkwardness of such a situation, to
view it in no other light. It may often happen that the opposition did
not originate in objections to the individual. That Is most true. But
then in all such cases the opposition was unjust, unconscientious, and
cruel, — and the impression on both parties may not be the less power
ful, or the impediments to future usefulness less, that on the one part
257
there is the consciousness of having committed, and on the other the
sense of having suffered, injustice.
No one can doubt that every year the exercise of the right to dissent,
whatever be the number of rejections, will become more and more fre
quent. The proportion, as well as the actual number of cases, in which
the dissenters may not be a majority, may be great. But in many
there will be left great heart-burnings, much dissatisfaction — the sore
ness arising from the excitement and controversy and heat which the
advocacy of the claims of rival competitors will produce, or the still
greater bitterness arising from opposing unsuccessfully the person actual
ly settled, — all these elements of discord, in short, which are so apt
to lead to dissension and divisions and schisms among congregations,
or will greatly interfere for a long period with the usefulness of the
clergyman. I believe all experience in such ecclesiastical matters confirms the re
mark of Lord Moncreiff in his evidence before the 'Patronage Commit
tee, that popular election would produce much secession from the
Church, or at all events much dissension in parishes.
If the Veto shall be often exercised, though it may not end in rejection,
it must infallibly more or less produce the very same results. Dissent
publicly expressed against one individual, commits the parties openly in
the face of the whole parish to an opinion against the usefulness of that
person, much more decidedly than voting for another, when there is a
choice by popular election out of several candidates. The vote, in that
case, in favour of one does not necessarily imply any personal objection
to another. It may not produce either awkwardness or soreness on either
side. It does not commit necessarily the parishioners, by any personal
declaration of opinion, against the individual who becomes their pastor.
Nay, it may often happen that votes are given without much preference
for one over another, or from previous engagements and promises, and
the parties may be quite satisfied with the individual ultimately chesen.
But in the case of the Veto, the parties who come forward to declare
publicly their dissent or Veto against the presentee, make then a public
protest against his appointment. They cannot avow that they had no
opinion on the subject, or no personal objection to him. They are thus
most openly committed to a declaration that he cannot edify them — is
not fit to be their pastor. That is the very meaning and principle of
the Veto allowed to them ; and the class may be, (as it frequently has
been,) very numerous, though not sufficient to reject.
Can it be said, then, to be for the good of parishes — for the credit of
the Church — for the usefulness, influence, and respectability of indivi
dual clergymen — for the peace of the Christian community, and for the
interests of religion — that a system so perfectly novel in the Christian
Church should be established, by which in a great number of instances
a proportion, — it may be a large proportion, — of the parish may have an
opportunity of publicly recording their individual conviction that the
person, who is selected for their pastor, cannot edify them, and is not
qualified to be their pastor ?
258
The plan proposed is for the future and permanent government and
economy of the Church. Look to all the elements of discord which
abound in the present state of society in this country — to the intensity
with which they break out upon all matters, however remote apparently
the occasion, or the connexion with the events which excite the divi
sions — to the great antagonist principles at present contending with
each other, for good or evil, for future weal or future woe to the coun
try, on every subject of human thought, — and let any man say, if he
can expect the result of such a system as the Veto, not to be, that in an
immense proportion of cases, dissent, though not sufficient to reject,
will be stated, aggravated by much previous heat, and leaving behind
it a residue of bitterness, division, and discontent most injurious to the
interests of religion and to the peace of the Church.
The instances have been numerous of dissents, though not sufficient
to reject. In one case, out of a very small roll of communicants, twenty
dissented. In some other cases there have been keen disputes and
litigation in the Church courts, where the dissentients amounted to a
majority, objections being stated to the propriety of including the votes
of absentees who had left the parish, though not deleted from the roll,
&c. ; and such litigations have gone on in some Instances for more than
a year, each disputed vote being keenly contested. In one case, the
elders resigned, and no Session remained in the parish, owing to the
divisions which prevailed. In another case, seventy-two dissented, the
roll being barely double ; — in another, the dissentients were only four
short of a majority ; — in another, fifty-nine out of two hundred and
thirty dissented ; — in another, one hundred and thirty-eight dissented
out of three hundred and fifty-four, — and fifty of the one hundred and
thirty-eight had actually petitioned for the appointment of the indivi
dual. Many other cases have occurred, in which a large proportion of
the parish have dissented, or expressed and evinced the greatest opposi
tion to the appointment, although the numbers were short of a majority.
The evils of such opposition are increased by what occurs in many
cases when the Veto is taken. Many are found to be on the roll who
are not admitted to be proper heads of families, or have lost their pro
per character of communicants, and whose votes are objected to.
The details of the cases which have come up to the General Assem
bly on these points, exhibit a most painful picture of discord, bitter
ness, and litigation. The agent for the presentee objects to the indi
vidual giving his veto — the Presbytery must hear and decide — If the
matter is near run, or if the keenness is great, (for the appeal may be
taken, whether material to the result or not), the proceeding is carried
to the Synod and then to the Assembly, One ease was before the As
sembly in two successive years, before the litigation in the Church
courts as to disputed votes was terminated.
These litigations are most vexatious. If tlve contending parties are
nearly equally balanced, they are prosecuted with the utmost keenness.
259
The uncertainty as to the facts is great — the contradictory evidence
most extraordinary, — in the i.ssue of these votes a new^source'of Interest
and excitement in the parish is created, — ' John Thomson's vote has
' been disallowed — is not that shocking ! What conduct on the part
'ofMr. B., the presentee. If we had known that, we would have
' given our dissent. We did not think he would have denied John's
' privilege as a communicant.' Or, ' Only think, they have couuted
' among those who are supposed to assent to Mr. B., James Hender-
' son, when we all know he was not a proper communicant : he had
' never Intended to join us again ; he is away, or is going from the
« parish, and has no part or lot with us — and yet he Is to be counted
' against us who have given our testimony against Mr. B. being able
» to edify us.'
The evils and: extent of the litigation and disputes in the Church
courts which have gone on respecting votes, have attracted so much
attention, that I need not dwell more upon this point in the ca§e.
But on the head of the unlucky presentee, who is obliged in self-
defence to object to these votes, or whose friends do so for him, a de
gree of odium falls, which aggravates the evils of dissent, in the cases
when the numbers may not be sufficient to lead to rejection.
Farther, the exercise of the Veto, whether it lead to rejection in the
individual case or not, or whether we look to the competitions and can
vassing which it will produce, will necessarily be most Injurious to
national character, and to the peace and quiet of the country, by in
troducing strife and discord and heat in the most exciting and bitter
topic of division which the interests of life can afford.
Every one knows how much of strife, of contest, of animosity and
disturbance to the peace of society, has prevailed In former times, from
contentions in parishes respecting the settlement of ministers, when they
were settled by popular election. 1 would wish any one who has
doubts upon that subject, to study the valuable evidence of Lord Mon
creiff before the Patronage Committee. No matter from what cause
such discords may have arisen, the fact is undoubted. It has furnish
ed a great theme for declamation in the arguments for the Veto. If the
cases of disputed settlements in the first twenty or thirty years after
the Act of Queen Anne was passed, which have been the fertile source
of so much of that eloquence, are attentively examined, it will be found
that the violence and discord arose far more from the strife and conten
tion in the parish for rival candidates in cases of popular election, than
from opposition to presentees, on account of objections personal to them.
What is now proposed to be done ? The patron Is to retain the
right of selection; and In every case whatever throughout Scotland, in
all future time, the people are to be invited to state their dissent publicly
to the presentee.
Is that likely to lead to harmonious settlements and to peace in parishes,
to promote the usefulness of the clergy, or to cement the bond which
unites them to the people of the parish .'' If a large number dissent,
(though not sufficient to reject), it is really difficult to say whether it
r
260
might not have been better that the individual had been rejected. Fre
quent settlements, after a large portion of the people have publicly at
tempted to exclude the individual by the Veto, is the most undesirable
result which can be conceived, in the ordinary operation of the ecclesi
astical arrangements of any country.
There are other circumstances, to which it is necessary to attend, of
great practical importance.
On the grounds on which the Veto is demanded, I should wish to ask.
Why, when the minister, after the best of all trials, viz. after he has
been settled and has served the cure for some time, is found by the peo
ple not to preach the gospel — not to edify them — not to contribute to the
nourishment of their souls, — they should not be entitled, in the exercise
of their Christian liberty, to reject him, and to insist that he shall no
longer be their pastor ? They can prefer no charge, it is true, against
him, of which a Church Court can take cognizance. What then ? The
people, after full experience of him, declare, that in his doctrine they
can find no spiritual instruction — that they cannot be edified by him :
they plead their own qualifications to judge on these points : they
plead their privileges as members of the Church.
I should wish to ask, what is there to meet that demand on the
principle of theVeto, but the interests of the individual incumbents;
and what are these, on the views on which the Veto proceeds, that they
should be put in competition for a moment with the reclamation of a
whole people against a person by whose doctrine they declare they can
not be edified ? But at all events the law can be easily altered on the
point of interest in the benefice, as lo all future appointments ; nothing
so easy. The people simply desire that a change in the law should be
made, so that a life interest in future may not be pleaded against them ;
and I suspect that the only answer to such a demand, consistently with
the views on which the Veto Is advocated, would be the significant re
ply of one of the opponents of patronage to the Committee of the House
of Commons, ' That would never do : That would be a radical measure
' indeed.' But the point is, what objection can be stated against the
demand for such a change, consistently with the principles on which the
Veto is conceded to the people ?
We must give full effect to the views which are stated as to the
' rights of the Christian people,' or as to what is required for the ' Chris-
' tian good of the people,' if the language used has any meaning. In
all arrangements for the instruction of the people, and in attending to
the sufficiency of the means for that purpose, and the parties who are
entitled to decide on the qualifications and gifts of ministers, we must
(it seems) consider the Church as composed of Ministers and People —
the latter having a distinct standing and place in such matters. It is no
answer to the latter to say, that the former find no fault in the minister
whose duty It Is to instruct them, but that they are ready to hear objec
tions, and decide upon them. The answer Is triumphant. ' He cannot,
' and does not edify us. He does not preach the gospel to us, and we
261
' know that his doctrine is not sound. Your opinion cannot altt r the fact.
' We are surely better judges of him now than when you acknowledged
' our right to judge, but gave us only one trial sermon of hlin. We
' have tried him for years; and on the very ground on which the law was
' altered, in order to introduce and sanction the Veto, we require that
' the law shall be altered for the more Important object, that you, the
' ministers of the Church, shall not plead your life Interests against
' us, when we find, aiter full trial, that you are totally unable to edify
' us, or to do us any good whatever. The opinion of You, his co presby-
' ters, may be in his favour. But you have admitted that we are en-
' titled and qualified to reject, and that it is necessary for our good that
' we should have the right to reject, (whether you think the party quall-
' fied and fitted for us or not), on the ground that we must be satisfied
' that the individual is to edify us. And now that we have tried
' him, and had ample experience of him, is it any answer to us to say,
' that the ministers of the church find no adequate ground for a sen-
' tence of deposition, when we. the people, unanimously declare that we
' do not receive the least benefit from his ministrations i*'
This is no extreme result of the opinions contended for. It appears
to me to be a much more natural Inference from them than the right
to reject on a single trial. If the reply is to be founded on other
grounds — such as, the authority and jurisdiction of the Church — the
importance of protecting the Church, and the people themselves, against
their prejudices and capricious turns of feeling — their aversion to the
truth — the right and duty and fitness of the Church to decide for them
— the necessary independence which the ministers ought to possess over
popular favour — then we are carried into views, all of which will apply
as directly and forcibly against an irresponsible Veto on nomination. But
if you admit the Veto on the grounds, and to the extent contended for,
it does not follow that the people will acknowledge that their judg
ment afler trial, is not better than at first, and that they ought not to
receive redress when the Individual turns out, in their opinion, to be
good for nothing. Nor will it be easy to make out a consistent argu
ment against the right of a congregation to get rid of a minister whom
they declare to be useless to them, after they are so much better able
to judge, than when they were admitted to be quite qualified to decide
upon that very point.
We are asked to alter the law, let it be remembered, in order to
secure this right to reject. It is as easy lo alter it in one point as in
another. And most people, I suspect, will be of opinion, that if a
right to reject should be given, it will be most useful as a means of get
ting rid of stupid, inefficient. Indolent, and dull ministers, (no matter
how chosen), whose continuance In the charge of the parish is an unmiti
gated evil. The clergy, as appears from the evidence upon the Pa
tronage Committee in 1834, do not like this view of the subject. But
1 am persuaded that Congregations, even where their minister has been
chosen by popular election, may often think it a very expedient mea
sure. And the more popular the mode of nomination, the fitter it is
262
that if the person does not edify and instruct the people, in the opinion
of those who choose him, they should be entitled to reject him.
A very serious consideration connected with the Veto law, according
to the theory on which it is founded, and which acquires additional im
portance from the way in which it works, is, that no permanent con
nection WITH the PARISH is required in order to entitle a party on the
roll of communicants to reject, or to concur in the selection which the
power of rejection practically ensures.
An individual who has been twelve months in communion, (for that
limitation is now proposed), if he has his family in the parish, though
he may intend to remove, and may be under the necessity of removing
at the next term, has an equal right and interest in the matter with the
landed proprietors — with the farmers possessing on long leases — with the
manufacturers having large establishments — with the regular agricul
tural population, who may in some districts be considered as stationary,
though now unhappily not in many.
All have the right who are heads of families. Artizans moving often
from place to place, according to the variation in the rates of wages, or
the encouragement in the district — domestic servants (even though un
der notice to quit), whose families are in the parish — occasional labour
ers in all branches of business — the workmen employed in building any
great house or manufactory, if they have brought their families, as often
happens, when engaged for a year — the lodgers who may be in the pa
rish for perhaps only part of a year, if the vacancy then occurs — those
who may occasionally during one or two years, and actually at the
time reside, for a part of a season for health or sea- bathing, &c., — in
short, all individuals on the roll of communicants who have families.*
And even of the stationary population equal weight is given to the
* Various attempts have been made to endeavour to give the show
of some connection with the parish. The last regulations propose re
sidence in country parishes, but without any description of the length
or character of that residence, and without any provision which ensures
a continued interest in the parish. The proposed regulation, even if
ultimately adopted in its present form, will leave this important ques
tion of residence open to be interpreted by each Presbytery, and each
successive Assembly, according to their notions of what it is sufficient
to require in each case.
It is a very remarkable fact, that while the Church professes to stand
by an absolute right to reject, the description of persons, to whom that
right is supposed to belong, is varied and altered in each statement of
the law, and in the regulations of each year. Dr. Chalmers required,
in his motion in 1833, the necessity of having been two years in com
munion. The Veto law of 1834 speaks of the will of the people and
the congregation, but gives the power only to male heads of families
263
voice and opinion of all classes indiscriminately, on a matter on which
it is in vain to say that no weight is due to education, experience of
mankind, superior intelligence, and greater mental cultivation.
On this point there is great practical wisdom, and much manliness
and faithful dealing with the interests of the people, in the simple but
just remarks of Dr. M'Gill.
In the views which of late have been so openly advocated, and to
which Dr. Chalmers has lent his sanction, it will be said that the lower
orders are most Interested in the question, — that they are best qualified
to judge, — that there Is more piety among ' our home-bred peasantry,' —
that if the minister satisfies them that Is the object to be secured, — and
as for the upper ranks, — ' they do not know us : they do not under-
' stand us.'
The result may indeed in time raise a barrier which will prevent
them understanding their ministers, if the views and demands of the
lower classes are exclusively or chiefly to prevail in their selection. And
it will be a convenient standard of attainments for a Church to aim at,
the nomination of whose ministers shall be monopolized, as Dr. M'Gill
says, by the lower orders.
Dr. Chalmers dwells on his great desire to unite the proprietors and
the lower orders cordially under the same Temple. It may be very true
that a variety of causes lead many in the former class (though the propor
tion is grossly exaggerated) in early life to acquire a prepossession for the
Episcopalian service. But at least hitherto it has never been pretend
ed by any one that the clergy of the Church of Scotland, while most
fully answering the purposes of a ministry for the very poorest classes,
have not also been found, in talents, in attainments. In Information, in
qualifications for ministerial duty, equal to what the most cultivated
minds require. Peculiarities in our condition as connected with Eng
land, may give many an early impression in favour of the Episcopalian
service, and that is to be regretted : But it is of late treated with most
undue severity, in the reprobation which it has met with from some of
the leading advocates of these changes ; — and 1 believe that there exist
the kindliest feelings on the part of such persons generally towards our
clergy, and a very warm attachment to the Church of Scotland.
But none of any class ever pretended to find the clergy of the Church
of Scotland not fully and completely qualified for their instruction and
guidance.
being communicants. A Regulation in another year, by a most whim
sical and arbitrary regulation, (intended to exclude illustrations of the
danger of this power, which was said to be an Indefeasible right), de
clared that none should be allowed to exercise the Veto, who had peti
tioned for the presentee — a regulation which completely admits that
there is no such right as that of^the Veto, even in the estimation of the
Church, and that the whole matter is in truth new legislation. Another
regulation introduced twelve months communion ; and another, the de
scription of being resident In the parish ! !
264
Indeed one beautiful feature in the Scotch Church, has been the perfect
manner In which hitherto the clergy have been found to meet the wants
and to suit the standard of all classes of society. Perhaps there has
been no example in the previous history of the Christian Church, In
which that combination has been seen more complete and perfect, than
in the clergy of the Church of Scotland during the last 1 40 years.
It is proposed now to substitute for the system under which such a
clergy has been secured, a mode of nomination which will necessarily,
and in a short time universally, — It may really be said in all the parishes
of Scotland, — practically lead to a choice influenced by, or intended to
please, the most numerous class, — the lower orders of the community.
Dr. M'Gill has sufficiently touched on the objections to such a system,
which are to be found in the diminution of Interest which will follow on
the part of the class who find their views, opinions, and estimate of pas
toral qualifications so little consulted, and their wishes perhaps often
purposely defeated.
But there are other evils to society which will follow not less directly.
In politics, the Influence of property, of station, and education, except
at moments of excitement, will generally operate greatly on the lower
and middling classes of society. But in religious matters, and in the
choice of a minister, the experience we have had in Scotland shews
that, on the contrary, the latter classes will, in most instances, be found
to take, purposely, and in the most marked manner, a different line and
course from their superiors. The evidence of this is abundant. Indepen
dence of character is shewn by it in a matter in which they think that their
superiors cannot reasonably expect them to yield. The desire to mark
that independence Influences many. It is thought right to shew in
that way their equality in matters which belong to common interests.
The choice or taste of their superiors, they are apt to think, will not
in the long run suit them, — a very great, but a most natural mistake
in such a case. And as it often will happen that the opinions and tastes
of the two classes may differ widely as to the supposed defects or recom
mendations of preachers, — the lower classes may think they detect a
manner which will make him indifferent to the humble duties of a paro
chial life, — they may lm_aglne that cultivation and refinement imply
unfitness for intercourse with them, and that If their superiors like him
lor these qualities, the risk is, that they, on the other hand, may have
reason to be dissatisfied, — and they are apt to think that, in a style and
manner more like their own, they may find a person of equal attain
ments, but better suited for them.
Opposition to their superiors in such selections and judgments, we do
find in experience, very frequently occurs.
Then — in every parish, there will be found some of those characters so
powerfully painted by Dr. Chalmers, who will take due advantage of all
the probable causes of difference, and find occupation and delight in
converting such difference into open opposition. Thus the seeds of dis
cord in society are sown, on the subject, of all others, in which separa
tions become the most marked and the most lasting.
265
There may be no Intention originally on the part of the people to go
against the patron or the heritors. But the discussion and the differ
ence which will often ensue, whether the people get their choice, or are
tojudgeof the presentee, between these classes, may produce a great
and serious misunderstanding, which may tend. In a very unfortunate
degree, If not to alienate them from each other, at least to a marked se
paration, which years will not remove, and which the next vacancy In
the parish will widen and embitter.
When candidates are proposed for selection, and even when a presen
tee is offered for judgment, there will always' be found some one looking
to the situation, and making interest in the parish, who will address
himself peculiarly to the taste and feelings and views of pastoral quali
fications and preaching, of the class with whom the ultimate decision
lies. Dr. M'Gill said most prophetically that the people would soon use
their power in order to ensure choice. They have done so. Dr. M'Gill
said that the system would enable one class, the labouring class, as the
most numerous, to monopolize the selection and choice of ministers. That
has also been the result.
The details of the cases have shewn that in many instances the feel
ings of that class have been manifested in one way — the feelings of the
farmers and the middle class of society generally in another way — and
in many cases the gentry have kept aloof from a scene in which they
knew that they would have no Influence — in which their wishes would
not be attended to, and In which occurrences were likely to take place
in which they did not choose to mix.
What has been the result .-* Is the Veto popular ? Most assuredly
that cannot be affirmed. The Committee of Assembly are obliged to
admit that even in their view it is not so. But is it popular in the
districts in which its effects have been fully exhibited, or in which it
has led to popular elections ? To the advocates of popular elections,
the Veto of course has attractions. To those whom Dr. Chalmers so
eloquently describes as the village demagogues, who live in scenes
of turbulence, it has peculiar charms. But with the great mass of in
telligent and reflecting men, who look to its effects on the interests of
religion, and on the welfare of the Church, the measure is any thing
but popular. I believe the farmers and middling classes have discover
ed that it leaves them without any fair Influence in so important a mat
ter, and every case has proved that the matter, as Dr. M'Gill says, has
been monoplized by one class alone.
Allow me to request your Lordship to look to the statements contained
in the evidence of Lord Moncreiff, as to the misrepresentations which are
made respecting the desire for popular election In Scotland, and as to the
undue and unpopular attempts to excite agitation for that purpose. The
exposure is complete, and the view given of the nature of any feeling
which really exists In some quarters, is, I believe, perfectly accurate.
All the information I can collect as to the slate of feeling in the
country, is a general regret that the Church broke in upon the slate
266
of things before 1834, and much dissalisfaclion with the whole working
and operation of the Veto law.
There are some consequences which will result from the deference to"
the will of the people on which the scheme of the Veto proceeds, both
on public opinion, and on the authority and influence of the Church,
which may deeply affect the interests of religion.
Supposing the case to occur, which is not unlikely to happen, that
the Presbytery are obliged to reject the individual whom the people
may have specially approved of or chosen, either on the ground that
his doctrines are not sound, or his mode of preaching unsuitable for
the right discharge of pastoral duty, or that his attainments and quali
fications are not such as are necessary for the ministry, — in short, to
reject him on any of the grounds on which we have seen the Church
courts often jiroceed. What authority comparatively can the judg
ment of the Presbytery now possess, after the Church has ascribed
such Importance to the will and judgment of the people, and has
declared that they are entitled and thoroughly qualified to decide who
are fitted to edify and instruct them, and who are not ? I pass over
the view stated by Mr. Candllsh, both in the last Commission, and in
his Tract which came out immediately before Its day of meeting, as to
the standing and duty of the people, for on that view the authority of
the Church is utterly destroyed. But I take the principle on which
the Veto proceeds, viz. that the people are, in the opinion of the
Church, well qualified to say who can edify and instruct them, — and
that it is a necessary element, in the provision for securing a successful
and useful ministry, that their opinion on that point shall be decisive.
Take along with this principle the inevitable effect of the measure to
secure choice to the people : — and (if the views of Dr. Chalmers are to
be regarded in considering the importance of the measure) add to that,
the admission as to the discernment and just perception of the truth
possessed by the congregations of the kingdom, to whom the power of
rejection is to be entrusted ; — And then what security remains that the
rejection by the Presbytery of the favoured preacher — whom the peo
ple desire to have — whose doctrine they delight in — whose preaching
they declare gives food and nourishment to their souls, and whose at
tainments and views of gospel truth they find to convey to them edi
fication and instruction and comfort: — that the rejection of such a
favourite, in the faithful dealing of the Presbytery with the people
under their spiritual charge. Is lo carry the same authority with it, or
give the same satisfaction, as in the system which has hitherto prevail
ed .f" Are the people as likely to remain in the position of humble and
obedient and docile sons of the Church — as likely to acknowledge the
wisdom and justness of its decisions, and the necessity of such su
perintendence and judgment In order to protect themselves against
the risk of their own ignorance, false doctrine, wayward impressions,
267
weakness, errors, and general incapacity to decide on the qualifications
of their spiritual Instructors.
The manner in which Individuals may be chosen, may more fre
quently create the necessity of such rejection.
But what Is worse, the extent to which the interference of Presby
teries may be carried in regard to the nomination of ministers, the part
which they may take, and the interest which they may exhibit in the
success of particular candidates, will create distrust as to the purity of
their decisions — will lead the people to doubt the integrity of the judi
cial character, when the individuals are so often seen arrayed In the heat
and excitement which preceded the appointment — when their wishes and
opinions as to individuals, or as to the choice of persons of particular
views in Church affairs, are so well known. The Individual rejected as
unfit may often differ from them on these points — often on general po
litics. It is most important to preserve the authority of the decisions of
the Church courts on so important and delicate a matter. But every
view of the working of the ^'eto, and of its effects on Presbyteries and
on the people, shews how fatally the respect for the Church Courts may
be impaired in the opinion of the latter.
To any reflecting mind it must always appear that to the system of
popular election It is a very grave and weighty objection, that It endan
gers the authority of the Church and the unity of its congregations, in
the very cases in which the deference to that authority ought to be
greatest, and In which it Is under any circumstances most difficult to
preserve the integrity and union of congregations, viz. cases in which
the Church courts reject the favoured candidate, as not qualified. But
the Veto is peculiarly exposed to this risk. For the Church thereby
declare that the opinion of the people ought to decide on the point,
whether the individual who is to be appointed can edify them or not.
The people, by the operation of that principle, have decided upon that
point, — they have got the person who is to edify and instruct them,
and from whose ministrations they declare that they are to receive profit
and instruction : And then the Church informs the people that their
opinion and judgment is utterly erroneous, — that in the very doctrines
which have pleased them, and from which they desire to receive con
solation and instruction, there is error and heresy, — that the mode of
preaching which they admired was unsound, vicious, and depraved, —
and that the attainments and learning of the man of their choice were
so miserable that he was unworthy to be ordained as a minister of the
Church. Is that decision likely, in the course of time, to carry the weight which
it ought to possess ? Are the people likely to receive with submission
and deference this return to their opinion and selection ? Are they likely
to acquiesce in this mortifying reply from the Church, which has taught
them such a different estimate of their own qualificadons for forming a
decision on the point, — the most interesting to them in all the arrange
ments and decisions of life ? Is there no risk of the deference due to the
Church being weakened by the defeience which the Church has paid to
268
their will ? Is there no probability that they will plead against the
Church the necessity of attending to those feelings and perceptions of
truth, to that discernment of the gospel, which the Church declares en
ables them so clearly and unerringly to decide whether they are to be
profited or not by the ministrations of any particular individual.
Rejection, Indeed, is an opinion expressed only against the individual
presented! But, if that right is acknowledged on the principles stated
by Dr. Chalmers, — still more on those advocated by the rest of his Com
mittee, — If the people can say so unerringly who can edify them, as to
make their rejection a proper and necessary thing In the event of that
being their opinion, — and if the effect of this measure is to obtain for
them, by the possession and exercise of the power so given to them, the
privilege of choice — Is it to be supposed that the people will submit
with deference to the unexpected and unwelcome decision — ' Your qua-
' lifications and views of truth fitted you only to reject the man you did
* not like, and who, you said, could not edify you. Your opinion and
' wishes are of no weight in passing or choosing the individual who can
' edify you. On that point we do not value your judgment — your
' views of the truth, or your estimate of the merits of any preacher.'
1 think that it must be very obvious that, in many cases, the deci
sion rejecting the person favoured or chosen by the people may create
the greatest dissatisfaction, — sow the seeds of much discontent against
the Established Church, and give rise to disunion and secession from
the Church.
Smaller causes have produced these results in parishes.
Further, all these evils will be increased by the effects, which the
change will certainly produce on national character. The measure will
produce and engender pride, overweening conceit, injurious notions of
the deference due to the opinions of numbers, and unbounded confidence
on the part of the people in their own religious attainments and know
ledge. 1 am anxious not to be understood as expressing an opinion that
such will be the result only on the lower orders. I have no doubt that
ti/e effect of the measure in these respects will be more injurious in its
it.fluence on their character, because it bestows the power on them, and
unduly gives them the means of ' monopolising' the nomination of
ministers, and also because the measure administers to them a flattery,
by which they are most likely to be injured. But the measure will pro
duce the same effects more or less on congregations of all classes. Spi
ritual pride will be created or increased in all; and a most baneful tinge
given to national character.
Again, on what principle, consistently with the Veto, is the Esta
blishment to maintain its ground in a parish, when the great majority
of the people, holding themselves to be members of the Church — on
the roll of communicants — entertain peculiar views on religion; in which
269
alone, they declare, they can be Instructed to edification — in which
alone they find nourishment for their souls ? True, the Church tells
them, — ' You misunderstand our doctrines — you pervert them to your
' views — your ignorance unfits you for understanding them — the task
' Is above you. Your pride and presumption of mind, your proneness
' to error, your inability to think aught for yourselves without Instruction
' and reformation, which you stand so much in need of, have misled
' you. You have not brought to the study of the Scriptures minds
' duly enlightened and subdued ; — Your views are wholly erroneous, and
' you have no just discernment or just perception of the truth, — you do
' not see the truth, and you are unable as yet to understand the grounds
' on which the truth rests.'
To all such authoritative announcements, the people reply In the
words of Dr. Chalmers — but In vain. On what footing can an Esta
blishment rest after such an acknowledgment of the discernment of the
truth by Its hearers, and such an admission of their rights and stand
ing in the Church ? Are the ministers of Church Courts alone to de
cide for the parish what is the truth in that Confession to which they
both appeal ? Or will the people be easily brought to the conviction,
that, after all, their opinions are to be held in no esteem, and that they
have no other course left but secession, when they declare, on the invita
tion of the Church itself, the views which they have acquired as members
of the Church ! It is very plain that the effect of the measure we are
considering, and of the views on which it proceeds is, in the case of
such difference between the people and the Church, to endanger the
principle of an Establishment, and to arm dissent and heresy on such
occasions, as the differences between the Church and the people which
the Veto and popular choice may produce, with weapons against the
Estabhshment furnished by its own mistaken and injurious flattery to
the weakness and pride of their hearers.
But let us consider the point in a further view. An Established
Church maintains Itself independently of the numbers who adhere to
it, either In particular parishes or in particular districts of the empire,
as in Ireland. Such anomalies will always exist In almost every coun
try. We had large districts of Catholics in Scotland at the time of the
Revolution. We set about converting them. We preached to them
in their own language. We did not for a moment admit the modern
doctrine, that it can be a duty of an Establishment and of the State,
not to gain proselytes to the faith of the National Church. We did
all that lay in the power of a zealous active clergy, and of Scriptural
education under the care of the National Church, to gain proselytes,
and to convert men from the errors and superstition of popery to the
truth. And the result was successful, just because the effort was open
ly and pubhcly made in the performance of an acknowledged and para
mount obligation on the Established Church.
When a Church Is Established as the National Church It Is no objec
tion to It to say, — here is a great district in which the majority differ
270
from you : The answer is plain : — The object and purpose of our being
established as a National Church is to convert them ; we are more re
quired in that quarter than in any other. We exist, then, to bring
them to the Church, and we doubt not of success. The people are ig
norant or misled, unable to discern the gospel, have no just perception of
the truth; they Hsten to false doctrine, — they do not respond to the gos
pel : But still we persevere, and we expect and hope, in time, that we
who know the truth will be enabled to communicate it to their minds.
Upon that principle an establishment depends, although in parts of
the country the people who do not belong to it may be the most numer
ous class.
But the people reply in the words of Dr. Chalmers— ' We have
' studied the Bible as well as you of the Establishment — we are men of
' like capacities and Information with you: The instant discernment of
' the Gospel, the just perception of the truth, by men who cannot define
' their belief or expound their views, is not surely the privilege of one
' class of our fellow-subjects. We can say no more than that you
' do not preach the gospel to us — we find no nourishment to our souls
' in the food you offer us. We do not desire to be dissenters — we
' require an Establishment — we are ten times the number of those
' who differ from us. We are surely as well entitled to judge for
' ourselves as to the doctrines which are to edify us as others are. The
' question is as to the salvation of our souls : a question in comparison
' with which all matters of established interests sink into utter Inslgnlfi-
' cance. We cannot be edified with the doctrines of those ministers —
* our hearts reclaim against their doctrines.'
What answer can an Establishment make on the principles on which
this ^^eto is advocated ? Will it do to say, ' We did not mean our
' language to be taken in this sense ? It is our people only who are to
' judge for themselves — they only are entitled to hold this language to
' the State and to the country. We speak merely of the qualities of
' those educated by us, not of human nature in general, when we have
' been declaiming on the necessity of allowing men to reject those by
' whom they cannot be edified, and whose doctrine they feel is not the
' doctrine of the Gospel.'
One of the main grounds of defence for an Establishment Is destroy
ed, if the principle either of a Veto or of popular election is adopted
by an Established Church.
The appeal to numbers— especially on the grounds on which that
appeal is required by the advocates of the Veto — leads to results quite
inconsistent with the authority and privileges of an Establishment.
The Committee appointed by the General Assembly, under Dr. Chal
mers's motion, made the following communication in a report read by Dr.
Chalmers to the Commission of the General Assembly in the beginning
of August. ' First, we can state our having received the assurance of the
' Government, that they were fully impressed with the importance
271
« of the subject, and would give it their most serious consideration, and
' thai they would give instructions to the Lord Advocate to prepare, along
' with the Procurator, a measure to be submitted to the Cabinet.
' And for those who might desiderate something more definite, and
* as they might perhaps feel, more substantial than this, we have the
' satisfaction of announcing, if not yet a specific measure by the Legis-
' lature, at least a specific and most important concession to the views of
' the Church on the part of the Government. They have authorised us to
' state, that in the disposal of those livings which are at the nomination
' of the Crown, its. patronage will most certainly be exercised in
' accordance with the existing law of the Church, a resolution
' which applies to nearly one-third of the parishes of Scotland. But
' we reckon on a good deal more than this.''
The^rst part of this statement, so far as it implied that the Govern
ment had directed the matter to be taken up as a Government measure
by their law officer, with a view to prepare a bill, or that the Govern
ment had any intention, as a government, to address themselves to the
consideration of any specific measure, has, as your Lordship will recol
lect, received a most distinct contradiction from the answer of Lord
Melbourne to a Question immediately afterwards put by Lord
Brougham ; and the purport of his Lordship's answer was rendered
still more clear by the assent given by Lord Melbourne to a subsequent
observation by Lord Brougham that he drew from Lord Melbourne's
statement the distinct conclusion, that the Committee had wholly miscon
ceived and misrepresented the purport of what passed with his Lordship.
To that statement Lord Melbourne, as I am assured by those present,
distinctly assented, and the result was by Lord Brougham declared to
be perfectly satisfactory.
That result then I understand to be only this, — that the Government
perceiving, on the statement of the Deputation, that the question was a
very dificult one, attended with many important considerations, which
required much deliberation, said, they would give the subject the pro
per attention, and that if the Procurator for the Church chose to try
his hand in putting any proposition into the shape of a bill, the Lord
Advocate would, in the first instance, consider their proposition in that
shape. I understand, on the other hand, that Lord Melbourne seemed to
assent to the general accuracy of the Report of the Committee, in so
far as it is stated that he had expressed a desire to administer the Crown
patronage in accordance with the Veto law. I do not understand that
his Lordship confirmed the statement that he had authorised the Com
mittee to make an announcement of any such expression to the peo
ple of Scotland — an announcement of itself leading to consequences
which it could not be for the interest of the Government, independently
of all other considerations, to produce. The contradiction which the
Report of the Committee received upon one point, leaves a strong Im
pression that they had laboured under an equally erroneous belief, when
they supposed that Lord Melbourne authorised them to proclaim pub-
272
licly what had passed in their interview with him, or to convert this
expression Into a pledge that the validity of the Veto was not in any
event to be disputed.
I am persuaded that the Nobleman at the Head of her Majesty's
Government, whose sagacity and foresight none will dispute, had not
been in possession of any accurate knowledge of the position of matters
when he admitted any disposition to acknowledge the Veto, in the ex
ercise of the patronage of the Crown. Lord Melbourne left the Home
t)ffice before the Veto came into operation.
I think his Lordship will be somewhat startled by the use made of
this communication by the members of the Committee at the meeting
of the Commission.
As might have been anticipated, great astonishment was felt by
every one at this communication, and still more at the statement that
the Government had distinctly authorised the statement to be made to
the Commission of the General Assembly.
' Dr. Cook said, it had been distinctly laid down that the law of the
' land, as determined by the supreme judicatories, conferred certain
' rights upon patrons, and before those rights were done away it was
' requisite to remodel the law of the land. Yet the House had here
' a communication from her Majesty's Government, stating that they
' were determined to carry on their patronage in direct opposition to
' that law. (Some cries of No, no.) He was not thus to be put down.
' Was it not admltted^that an Act of Parliament would be requisite to
' do what was contemplated in the report? Was it not admitted that
' as the law stood at present, if they proceeded in the way proposed,
' there would be a separation of the civil benefice from the spiritual
' cure ? How could the Government do what they contemplated ? Would
' they take the man whom they presented bound that he shall go in direct
' opposition to the law of the land.? Was this conduct worthy of a
' Government .'' He could not certainly admit, that by any declaration,
' such as had been made by any dispensing power — and bis learned
' friend knew that there were times when the exercise of the dispensing
' power had led to results of no ordinary magnitude — he could not
• admit that by any such dispensing power the Government could set
' aside what had been by the highest judicatories declared to be the law
' of the land.'
' The Procurator (Mr. Bell) said, he could not but express bis extreme
' surprise that his Rev. friend should assume that the Govern ment would
' proceed in any particular way to carry their object into effect. — His Rev.
' friend surely had ingenuity enough to see how that object might be
' effected without exercising any dispensing power. The Report had
' not stated that the Government meant to exercise a dispensing power.
' He (the Procurator) was not there to say what course the Government
' would take ; but he could state a way which would be equally effectual.
' He would just put it to the Commission whether there was not a
' mode by which the Government, and every other civil patron, might
' gain the end in view, without exercising the dispensing power ? Sup-
273
' pose the Government were lo determine that they would issue no pre-
' sentation whatsoever to any one who was not petitioned for
' by the majority of communicants in the vacant parish ; and
' suppose a person for whom the majority petitioned were presented,
' might the thing not be done without the dispensing power ? The
' Government might intend lo follow this course ; and if they did so,
' there was no violation of the law.'
' Principal Macfarlan must observe that the conjecture of the learned
' Procurator went the full length of popular election, ior which he was
' not aware that the members of this Church were as yet prepared.'
That Lord Melbourne contemplated the practical concession, and the
complete abandonment of the whole patronage belonging to the Crown,
thus explained by the Procurator as the course which might, which (he
should have said) must, be followed in order to fulfil the supposed pro
mise ascribed to Lord Melbourne, it will be difficult to believe.
But it is material to attend to the exact position of matters, and to
the effect of any such rule as that which Lord Melbourne seems to ad
mit, he had been willing to adopt.
The Church has refused to acknowledge the authority of the Courts
of law. It has asserted the validity of the Veto, and has refused to
take on trials a presentee rejected by the people, although the Courts of
law have decided theVeto law to be incompetent, and that the Pres
bytery is bound by statute to perform this duty.
The resolution of the Assembly is one directed against the right of
the Crown as much as against other patrons.
In this situation of matters, is it within the bounds of sober belief,
that the experienced and sagacious Nobleman at the Head of the Go
vernment of this country, who declared publicly in the House of Lords
that the authority of its decision must be upheld, could have understood
the true state of matters, when at the same time he seemed to admit
that he had said to the Church Deputation in substance, that their
resolution to resist the law should be submitted to so far as the Crown is
concerned, and that the Crown, in possession of neariy one-third of
the patronages in Scotland, will acquiesce in this extraordinary assump
tion of power, by which, in direct defiance of the judgment of the House
of Lords, the Assembly have resolved to deny effect to the rights of the
Crown, or any other patron ?
If the concession of the Veto is thought to be a proper and expedient
measure, or if it is to be adopted for the sake of popularity, the plain
course to take is to alter the law.
That Lord Melbourne, as the adviser and protector of the rights of
the Crown, and bound to uphold, as he declared was his Intention, the
authority of the decision of the House of Lords, could be aware of
what it was that he was asked to do, when requested to administer
the Crown patronage according to the Veto law, and in submission
to the resolution of the General Assembly, is to suppose that he
would deliberately adopt a course marked with the greatest Inconsist-
274
ency. That I do not believe. But I may be permitted to doubt if
his Lordship had been accurately Informed^of the state of matters to
which his concession applied.
Another considerarion, which must satisfy every one that He had not
been fully aware of the nature of these questions, is, that it is not possi
ble to suppose that he could, in the full knowledge of the case, have
made a concession which will operate so Injuriously on the rights both of
all other patrons, and of the Individuals presented by them,-— whose legal
rights the judgment of the House of Lords protects. It Is needless' to
point out what use will be made of this practical admission of the Veto,
if really acted upon by the Queen's Government, in order to concuss
private patrons into the same ' abandonment of patronage ;' — what
encouragement will be given to the people, by the authority and
sanction of the Government as it were, to use the power they have for
the purpose of wresting the right out of the hands of those to whom by
law it belongs, against the Admonition in the Pastoral Letter by the
Assembly of 1835 respecting the objects of the Veto law. Neither need
I point out the certainty that this public admission on the part of the
Government, (if not, as I am confident it will be, retracted as an error
— retracted with the approbation of all the Intelligent classes of the
community), will lead to the immediate and general exercise of this
power throughout all the parishes in Scotland, so as to put an end to
patronage, and to establish popular election.
The Committee saw clearly what was to be gained by the imme
diate and premature promulgation of this, I fear, inadvertent expression
of Lord Melbourne's wishes, and they significantly added that they
did not doubt that private patrons would not be found holding out In
support of their rights, from less ' deferential respect for the laws of the
• Church of Scotland.'
Did Lord Melbourne anticipate this injury to the rights of others,
or that this use was to be made of what passed .''
I am persuaded he did not, for no one will readily believe him to be
disposed to commit deliberate injustice to others.
What is the nature of the statement on the part of the Government,
which the Committee wish to convert into a sort of public Government
pledge, by giving to it this publicity ?
Can the Government bind the presentees who may be rejected, not to
assert their legal right under the presentation granted to them ? That
would be a preposterous supposition : — And the attemptwould be unavail
ing, for such a stipulation would be an illegal condition, and could not
be enforced. The presentee could not be prevented from trying his rights.
The Crown, when it issues a presentation, has given the right to the
benefice for his life to the presentee, if duly qualified, and cannot by any
subsequent presentation, interfere with or recall that grant. The pre
sentee Is Independent of the patron from the moment the presentation
is granted ; and the decision of the House of Lords has settled that the
people cannot put a Veto on that nomination. The Individual is en-
275
titled to be taken on trials, in order that his qualifications may be ascer
tained. But, says the legal adviser of the Church, the Government may do
what they promise In this way ; they may resolve to appoint no one who
fs not petitioned for by a majority of communicants.
I have some curiosity to know if it was explained to Lord Melbourne,
that this was the only way in which he had any means of effecting what
perhaps he supposed to be a very harmless procedure.^ He may
have said — ' I have no objection, — none, that the Crown's presenta-
« tlons should be in accordance with what you tell me are the laws of
' the Church.'
But was he made to understand that the presentee in each case, al
though he might be vetoed, would yet have a legal right under the pre
sentation, of which he cannot be deprived, and will he entitled to obtain,
as a matter of course, the very same judgment which has been pro
nounced in the Auchterarder case ? Was Lord Melbourne made to un.-
derstand this ?
Again, was Lord Melbourne made aware that even In the opinion of
the law adviser of the Church, the statement of his disposition to give
effect to the law, as it is called, of the Church, necessarily implied, that
in every case the Crown was to hand over the patronage to the people,
and to appoint the person whom the majority apply for, whether the
Government believe that individual to be a fit and qualified person or
not ? In one case lately, a patron left the choice to the people. They
applied (with great unanimity, I understand) for an individual whom
the Presbytery rejected as not qualified. Is the Crown to take no re
sponsibility — to make no inquiries — to leave the patronage, in short,
to the people — and to issue the presentation in obedience to the demand
of the people, and tied down by a pledge to do so .'' for if this proceed
ing is necessary in order to do what Lord Melbourne declared his willing
ness to do, then the nomination must be given to the people in all cases
— else the result will be, that the Government will be accused of break
ing their promise, and their presentees will in that case be unquestion
ably rejected.
Did my Lord Melbourne understand, then, what it is that the Crown
is expected to do ; — nay, what is the only course, in the expectation
and belief of the Church, in which his declaration can be acted upon,
and this supposed promise fulfilled ?
I doubt this much. I cannot as yet believe that his Lordship did
understand what it was, to which he was understood to agree, and which
he is expected to do : I cannot as yet believe that Lord Melbourne un
derstands that he can be expected to confirm any such view of the mat
ter, or is committed to any engagement or assurance to this Deputation
of the kind they ascribe to him.
I venture also to doubt whether his Lordship, when he expressed some
such disposition to this Deputation, intended or imagined that immedi-
s
276
ate publicity to the whole people of Scotland should be given to this
expression of his individual wish on the subject, and that it should be
proclaimed at the cross of Edinburgh, and hawked through the streets as
a piece of news, that her Majesty's Government meant to allow the peo
ple in one-third of the parishes of Scotland to veto presentees, or, in other
words, to choose their own ministers, for that is the only construction that
any one can put on the subject to whom the facts are known.
It was one thing to give some general assurance to a Committee, in
whose discretion and management of the question, during the very time
when the Government was anxious to consider what should be done.
Lord Melbourne thought he could confide.
But it was a very different matter that the Committee should (when
perfectly unnecessary for the object of their appointment, and when
it is no part of their duty to report to the Commission of the Assembly)
proceed with breathless haste, in a way both uncalled for and unusual,
to proclaim that Lord Melbourne had agreed to acknowledge the Veto in
all cases, — and that when they were asked how ? — the only answer that
could be given by the legal adviser of the Church (present at the inter
view, I understand) is, — ' Suppose the Crown shall resolve not to appoint
' any one except such as are petitioned for by the majority of the com-
' municants.' Was this use contemplated or sanctioned by Lord Melbourne of what
passed in London ? Did he authorize the Committee to promulgate
this to the people of Scotland .'' Or, was this an attempt to commit the
Government, in a way and to an extent very convenient for those who
intend by the Veto to obtain the practical ' abandonment of patronage
• in all cases,' (to use the expression of one of the leading members of
the Committee), but which could not have been contemplated by the
Government ?
The Government might have wished to try the matter, in order to
see how it worked, and might have expressed their willingness to do so
to the Committee. But still the restraint imposed by the decision of
the House of Lords remained. It could not be known whether the
Crown might not dispute the Veto. The people, therefore, would have
been under some controul : license would not have been too suddenly
given ; — the reins would not have been thrown down at once ; and du
ring the period necessary for deliberation, nothing final or mischievous
would have occurred.
But this cautious and prudent course would not have satisfied the ob
jects of the Committee. They plainly wished lo commit the Government.
They wished, by the promulgation of what passed, to make it more dif
ficult for this Government or any other to exercise the prerogative of the
Crown. They wished to gain practically the abolition of patronage,
' in all parishes,' by an open announcement of this expression of the in
tention of the Government, — an announcement which could only have
been made with the view to increase agitation on the subject, and to en
courage the people in all parishes, whether the patronage was in the
hands of the Crown or of private patrons, to exert the power so as to en-
277
force the right of nomination, and to concuss both the Crown and pri
vate patrons into that result universally.
/ suspect that Lord Melbourne has been very ill-used in the whole of
this affair.
Let me solicit the attention of your Lordship to this supposed, ex
pression of an intention to admit of the Veto in all cases of Crown
patronage, — in other words, by agreeing not to dispute the power to re
ject, to give the people the means of enforcing popular election.
If this promise is made on the part of the Crown lo the people of
Scotland, can the same privilege be denied to the people of England,
or long withheld from them ?
There is no point involved in this supposed promise as to altering
the law : It Is said to be a promise that the Crown is to appoint only
the persons whom the people choose and desire to have. That surely is
a promise just as easily fulfilled in England, without any alteration of
the law, as in Scotland.
The Crown patronage in Scotland is a matter of very great import
ance for the good of the Church. We have no other prizes in the
Church, on our Presbyterian system, than the parish livings.
For the encouragement of learning — for bringing forward men of
talent, attainments, and high character, the Crown patronage has
hitherto been of great use. It is a right which forms a graceful and a
valuable part of the prerogative of the Crown, in regard to an Establish
ed Church, — the exercise of which is well fitted to be of the highest ad
vantage to the interests of learning and the good of the Church.
I do not say that it has always been as systematically and as well
directed to these great objects, as it might have been, — Chiefly from the
great misfortune under which Scotland has laboured for a century, of not
having a separate Secretary of State, with parliamentary weight and ex
perience, and looking to the manner in which Scotch affairs might be
conducted for his own credit and character in public life.
But still great good was done by the way in which the Crown patron
age was for the most part bestowed. Great pains were taken to select
persons of merit, — and I would wish Lord Melbourne to turn to the
evidence before the Patronage Committee, in order to see what credit
Sir Robert Peel received from persons the most opposed to him, ior the
enlightened and anxious desire which was shewn by him during many
years he was at the Home Office, to bring forward men of eminence,
talent, and learning, and the satisfaction he was able to give to the
Church, not only without yielding one point as to the right of patron
age, but rather by acting in many cases more firmly on the principle of
direct selection by the crown, than had been previously done.
The Crown patronage gave the opportunity also of placing in the best
and most important livings men who had in smaller charges shewn
their talents for the pastoral office, and acquired distinction for learning
278
by their publications or sermons, or the reputation of their general at
tainments. Testimony is borne to the way in which the patronage was exercised
during the period I refer to, from all quarters, in the evidence before the
Patronage Committee. The instances that might be mentioned would
illustrate the importance of the principles, on which the Crown patronage
was then administered, even in a more striking manner.
The Crown patronage was eminently useful in the way I have men
tioned. It was, indeed, I may say, the means by which learning could be
encouraged in the Scotch Church, — merit and high attainments brought
forward — eminent characters in remote situations and poor livings re
warded — and the interests of religion consulted by systematic encourage
ments to the attainments by which alone a learned body of clergy can be
maintained. Is this, then, to be wholly thrown away and abandoned by the
Crown ? Is it really come to such a pass as the report of the Committee
leads us to fear ? Are the whole Crown livings in Scotland to be sur
rendered to popular election ? Is it the fact that the Crown is not to
retain (even though the law shall not be altered) the power to make one
single appointment ? — not to promote a single individual, or to have the
means of bringing forward a single person of talent and eminence ?
I need not dwell on so obvious an objection to the system of popular
election, or to any system ending practically in that result, — that it will
destroy the learning of the clergy as a body, and substitute other attain
ments as the object of pursuit, and the qualifications for getting into a
living. But is it to be supposed that the advisers of the Crown can in
tend to act avowedly on a plan by which so important a provision for
encouraging learning shall be wholly thrown away .''
In common with a great proportion both of those who are friendly to
the Government, and of those who, like myself, are conscientiously op
posed to it, I do entertain the firm belief that the case stated to Lord
Melbpume had not been fully understood by his Lordship, — that
he neither was apprised of the difficulties of doing what was asked of
him, — of the nature and peremptory character of this Veto, — of the ne
cessity oi giving in to popular election, as the only way in which what
was asked could be in fact allowed, — nor that he sanctioned this pro
clamation to the people of Scotland, by which the expression of an in
tention, which the Government might wish as a matter of experiment to
act on, was to be converted into a public acknowledgment that the
Veto would not, in any case, be disputed, and that the people were in all
cases to have their free choice.
The Committee saw, I presume, that, by the promulgation of this
conversational discussion, another great object would be gained by its
leading members, — by those who have taken up the advocacy of the
Veto, since it has been found to attain their object more generally and
effectually than they had supposed by the practical abolition of patron
age. They know well that even if the Veto should be sanctioned, the
279
Crown will be for ever committed to popular election, and that if the
Government once acts upon this public pledge (for so it will be viewed,
if the Government shall sanction what has passed). It will be of little
consequence whether a statute to legalise the Veto is passed or not, — for
after it is passed, what has taken place in the interval will tie the Go
vernment down to leaving the choice to the people, or if they attempt to
draw back, will sufficiently prepare the people to exert the power, which
the Church has given, in order to attain, as they best may, the same
end. The Introduction of popular election, or the sanction of any measure
which practically compels resort to such a mode of nomination, of the
whole ministers of the Church of Scotland, is a fearful experiment.
I am confident that none will look to it with more apprehension than
Lord Melbourne.
Since the previous part of this Letter was printed, my attention has
been called to a very zealous and able defence of ' the Present Position
« of the Church of Scotland,' by a ' Lay Member of the Church.'
Every principle already commented upon, as to the authority and juris
diction of the Church, and as to the doctrine of non -in trusion, is very
fully and anxiously upheld in the pamphlet I refer to. But after a
most anxious defence of the proceedings of the Church, the author of
this pamphlet, (whose personal character gives to his admissions on this
point great authority and weight), ends with this important and most
conclusive acknowledgment of the imperfections of the Veto law, and of
the dissatisfaction with which it is regarded by its supporters.
' Doubts, as formerly stated, have certainly prevailed from the very
'first, and still exist in the minds of many, as to the expediency of glv-
' Ing necessary effect to an absolute veto — some considering it would
' have been better to have revived, to some definite extent, the ancient
» usage of the Church, which required a positive assent on the part of
' the congregation, — while others conceived that the most advisable me-
' thod was to employ the veto, but to guard against its abuse, by placing
' it under the authoritative control of the Presbytery. This last, so far
' as I can ascertain. Is the prevailing opinion in the Church at the pre-
' sent day. Dissent, or Veto, as it is called, was preferred to assent, as
' the mode of ascertaining the sense of the congregation, solely on the
' ground that it was much more favourable to the presentee ; Inasmuch
' as the risk of a large proportion of the people coming forward to ex-
' press a solemn dissent was much less than the risk of the presentee
' falling to procure the positive assents of such definite proportion of the
' people as might have been required of him ; the obvious result of
' adopting the method by Veto being, that the presentee has the benefit
' of all being held to assent who do not positively come forward to dis-
* sent. This may be held a sufficient reason for adhering to theybrm
' of Veto ; but as, undoubtedly, instances may occur where violent op-
' position may be stirred up against a presentee upon groundless preju-
' dices, or from motives positively unworthy, it seems reasonable that a
280
' check against such abuses should be provided, by calling in the control
' of the Presbytery.''
We thus find that the ablest advocate of the Church acknow
ledges that distrust of this measure has always been entertained
among its supporters — that in the form in which the Church chose lo pass
it, and in which they now enforce it, it really cannot be defended, and
that in order to guard against the abuses which il at present permits,
and to exclude violent opposition from groundless prejudices or un-
worlhy motives, the measure which the Church has passed and is en
forcing, in defiance of the judgment of the House of Lords, must re
ceive material changes, which will give to it a totally different charac
ter in point of principle.
Surely, after the advocates of the measure were agreed what was the
principle on which it should be framed, and what the measure was
finally to be, — then would have been the time when (If ever) it was
fitting to place the Church in ' its present position.'
These variances in the views and proposals of all the leading advo
cates of the proceedings of the Church, sufficiently demonstrate, that in
truth they are all maintaining their respective speculations on matters
of expediency, and are not proceeding on any precedent, rule, law, or
practice of the Church.
The Committee declare that the Veto has never given satisfaction to
the Church, and that the change should have gone further, and required
a 'positive call' by the people. This ' Lay Member of the Church,'
whose opinions represent, I have no doubt faithfully, the opinions of
that (small) portion of the laity who support the ' present position' of
the Church, admits that great difference of opinion has prevailed from
the first as to the particular measure which should be adopted, and of
the wisdom of this measure among its supporters — (each sect, in truth,
viewing the whole matter as a change which the Assembly, in a legis
lative capacity, were to introduce, not as the enforcement of any posi
tive rule, or right, on the subject) — and he declares that the prevailing
opinion is, that the people have got too much power, and that it should
be placed under the control of the Presbytery, in order to check gross
abuses. Yet the singular thing is, that all run out into a crusade against the
courts of law, and as to the power and independence of the Church, in
support of a measure, which neither Dr. Chalmers nor the Committee,
nor their ablest defender, pretend to justify or maintain in its present
shape. Then, again, I ask, until the measure is adjusted among its defend
ers, and the Church is agreed upon the rule to be adopted, was it not
rather precipitate and extraordinary to proceed to extremities against
the law, and to hurry the Church into such a false ' position .?'
One party says, — The Church has taken her stand nobly for the Veto,
and we call on the Legislature to acknowledge the propriety of what we
have done, and to sanction our resistance to the law. True — the
Church has never been satisfied with the Veto — from the first this was
281
not the measure which should have been adopted, or is reconcilable to
principle — the people should have been placed in a less invidious situa
tion, and ought to have got more power : and we reserve the means of
bestowing that, by some further change.
Another — the author of the measure — says, — We take our stand
here — we abide by the law we passed, in defiance of the judgment of
the Court — and three weeks afterwards, he proposes to alter the whole
principle of the law.
The most respectable defender of the ' position' of the Church ends
by acknowledging that the principle of the measure is vicious, in giving
the people too much power, and that the Presbytery must have controul.
Yet none of these parties seem to see that they are differing on the
most fundamental principles which can enter into the whole question.
If the General Assembly has unlimited power of legislation, it is very
well to discuss all these differences. But at present the stand taken is
on the ground of the law and principle of the Church being fixed, and
yet all differ fundamentally as to what the principle is.
Either there is a right on the part of the people to reject, or there is
not. If there is, the argument of Mr. Cunninghame and Mr. Candlish
is complete, that on that right to reject there can be no controul ; for
if it is to be exercised only in the way in which others think reason
able, it is not a right to rejects The present rule, which the Church has
resolved to enforce, takes that view of the case. If there is no right to
reject, then to be sure you may introduce any restrictions and restraints
you choose on a privilege, which in that case you may wholly with
hold, or grant in the exercise of legislative power to such extent as you
choose. But in the latter view of the matter, there is no defence for
' the present position' of the Church, — for the only question then is,
what should in point of expediency be done — not what is the fixed law
of the Church, which at all hazards is to be maintained, but what
should its polity be — and then the question Is at an end ; for no one
can pretend that the Church has absolute legislative power. In the
latter view of the case there is no longer even the shew of plausibility
in the dogma of non-intrusion against the 'will' of the people ; — for, if
you are to subject that ' will' to any restrictions you deem expedient, you
at once admit that the term 'will' does not mean the pleasure and resolu
tion of the people, — does not import a right to reject, but only that
they are to be allowed to object, — the Presbytery judging of the pro
priety of such opposition.
Now, there cannot be two things more widely different. Parties
argue in support of the actual Veto law, which declares and enforces
the right to reject, and then end with admitting the necessity of restric
tions, which put an end to the notion of any such right ; — And yet it
seems never to be thought that there is any distinction in principle, or
as to the ' present position' of the Church, in these two matters.
The author of this pamphlet thinks, I see, that the Church is not
pledged to the Veto, as passed in 1834, by its resolution in 1839. The
282
' Statement' of the Committee fully demonstrates that this is the only
measure proposed ; and he will see that the ground taken, of the ' right
' oi the Christian people,' leads the active members of the Committee
to scout the notion of the exercise of the right being under the controul
of the Church.
I see the author further thinks that the risk of the rejection of a faith
ful preacher — perhaps because he was too good for the people — is, at
present, even, completely avoided ; because ' the first duty of the Pres-
' bytery in such circumstances, would necessarily be to support the
' hands of the patron, and to put down the unworthy and scandalous op-
' position.' This is a striking proof of the misconception which prevails in quar
ters where it might be least expected, as to the nature and character of
the Veto. The Presbytery unhappily, have no power but to register
the Veto. I shall be glad Indeed to find that the opinions of such lay
men as the author of this pamphlet, may at last open the eyes of the
clergy to the Infatuation of abandoning their proper province and duty,
and may lead them to discover that their Hearers do not desire to see
the Church despoiled of the controul and jurisdiction which they may
be assured the hearers of the Word can never wish to deny to them.
There are some short considerations of which I would wish, in con
clusion, to remind your Lordship.
The first is — That when Parliament did, two centuries ago, abolish pa
tronage, and left to the Church to regulate the nomination of ministers,
even the Church assigned the people only the right of objecting on cause
shown, to the persons who might be proposed to them, the Church
retaining the power and the duty of judging of the validity of these ob
jections. In the present day, the Church of Scotland has begun by surrender
ing that province, — has proclaimed the right to reject to be absolute, —
for the exercise of which no reason need be stated, and the abuse of
which the Church is not entitled to take cognizance of or to redress. And
then it asks Parliament to sanction a measure which, along with the
surrender of that duty in the event of rejection, leads necessarily to
choice by the people. The Church proposes that the people shall be en
titled to reject, without even stating a reason, the person whom even the
Presbytery perhaps may specially select for the parish. In what period
of the history of the Scotch Church, — in what period of the Christian
Church, has this right on the part of the people been acknowledged
by the Church ?
The second is — That the measure which the Government is asked to
recognise in practice, and to sanction by legislation, has, beyond all
question, operated in the very way which its proposers deprecated, and
the occurrence of which they declared to be so improbable as to be be-
283
yond serious calculation. I entreat your Lordship to look to the evi
dence of Lord Moncreiff, in order to contrast his expectations of the
working of the measure with the actual effects which it has produced,
and with the results boastfed of by the extreme party who have now
taken up the question.
The third is — That the author of the measure, — certainly its most
splendid advocate, — who has brought about the present state of things
by his hasty motion in the last Assembly, — proposed originally by his
motion of 1833, as a necessary and important check, that the Presbyte
ries should retain full jurisdiction, on proof either of malicious combina
tion, or that the opposition was not truly founded on objections person
al to the presentee, in regard to ministerial gifts and qualifications, to
disregard it, and to settle him under the presentation, — and that, in his
Note to the published Report of his Speech In last Assembly, he now
admits that the Veto ought to be placed under most extensive, sweep
ing, and important restraints, — restraints inconsistent with the notion
of a right on the part of the people to reject, for which they are not
accountable to the Church.
These most significant and emphatic acknowledgments at once of the
absurdity and danger of the principle which the Church has adopted,
and of the practical evils of the Veto, your Lordship and your colleagues
are expected to disregard; and the Committee, (in which Dr. Chalmers
seems to stand alone in his views,) desire the right to reject to be ac
knowledged in the most absolute form, without any controul whatever on
the part of the Church, and without the possibility of checking any abuse
in any case at any time, or of correcting the mischiefs of popular error,
¦ excitement, injustice, and delusion, however gross. They require the
Veto in that form to be sanctioned, as the very ' least' measure which
in principle they will accept.
The fourth is — That the Committee have acknowledged — and the
author of the measure himself concurs, as a member of the Committee,
in the public confession — that the measure has not given satisfaction to
a great portion of the Church who at present support it — that it is not
conformable in principle to their views of the constitution of the Church,
— that the people ought to be placed in a different and less invidious
situation ; — and that the Veto is now pressed by the leading members of
the Committee who desire the total abolition of patronage, from its no
torious effects in leading to that result. The change, then, which your
Lordship and the Government are desired to introduce is not intended
to be final.
The fifth is — That the Committee also require, in order to enable the
Church to act on any views which at any time they choose to adopt as
to the nomination of ministers, the recognition of a power on the part of
the Church, which supersedes all right of nomination, and tends to con
centrate the whole influence and direction In the settlement of ministers
284
in the hands of Presbyteries, in an irresponsible, undefined, and arbitrary
form, free from the restraint of judicial reasons and judicial process.
No one more lamented, — as his reported Speeches in the Assembly in
1832 and in 1833, and his evidence before the Patronage Committee,
sufficiently demonstrate, — the revival of these questions respecting the
appointment of ministers, than Lord Moncreiff; and before leaving this
subject, let me request the serious attention of your Lordship to the view
he gave of the state of the Scotch Church, upon which it was proposed
in 1834, to break in by a change which he fondly hoped was to work in so
mitigated a form, but which, it now appears, will perpetuate all the evils
which he deprecated. ' After these observations, 1 proceed to answer to
' the particular question now put. Is there any practical evil at this mo-
' ment existing, sufficient to call for this very hazardous measure,' (choice
by the people in any form, or to any extent), ' as I think it.'' Is there any-
' thing to Induce Parliament to yield to what I think the inconsiderate
' demands of a portion of the clergy, and of the people of Scotland, to the
' effect of destroying, or if not actually destroying, of endangering this
' establishment, which, in my opinion, has peacefully worked, and is
' working for the benefit of the country ; and from which, I think, that
' such incalculable benefits have accrued to Scotland and to the empire.
' We know, and those who are well acquainted with Scotland, cannot
' shut their eyes to the fact, that benefits derived from the Established
' Church are of immense magnitude, in education, in the general dif-
' fusion of knowledge throughout the land, in Christian knowledge, and
' Christian morality, spread among all ranks of the people, and in the
' general quietness, decency, and order of our population throughout
' Scotland. Now, I think that this proposal is at present made at a
' time when, in my opinion, the Church, so far from being in a decay-
' ing or falling state, is in a most flourishiyig condition, in an improv-
' ing state, when the pains which are bestowed by the teachers, and by
' the young men under education for the Church are perhaps greater
' than they were at any period, if it was not just at the time when the
' excitement of the Reformation of course produced very great exer-
' tlons by the persons who came forward into the Reformed Church.
' And I must be permitted to observe, (I think it is a proper place to
' make the observation, which is deeply impressed upon my own mind)
' that the true, or at least one principal cause of the agitation at
' present going on for destroying the Establishment — the true or a
« principal cause of the agitation by that newly constituted class of per-
' sons, I mean newly constituted In name, who call themselves Volun-
' tary churchmen, is to be found in the clear perception, that the
' Church is rapidly improving, and that evils which were formerly of a
' serious magnitude, were, and are greatly lessened, and continuing pro-
' gressively to be diminished.'
The prevailing disposition In the present day, when agitation is excit-
285
ed upon any subject, is to suppose that some concession must be made —
that something or other must be done to tide over the difficulty for the
time. But upon this question we have the advantage and the warning
of two different considerations, which have not occurred In regard to
many other questions in which concessions have been made from this
feeling. In the first place, we have had a trial of the Veto in the concession
made by the Church, and we have seen to what purposes it has been prac
tically turned, and to what demands it has led, — that all the expectations
of its framers have been disappointed, even under the great restraints of
a general conviction of Its illegality. And before adopting the measure,
let us both take warning by what has happened, and attend to the
memorable lesson read to us even in the course of the first year, by the
fact of its Projectors being obliged to put forth a remonstrance and ex
postulation at once to Presbyteries and to the people, against the abuse
of the power so precipitately entrusted to them both. The State is now
pressed to adopt a measure of which the country have had five years'
experience, and the evils of which have followed with such fearful ra
pidity. In the second place, this is no new ground of agitation in Scotland.
We have had it in various forms, (at long intervals), once or twice before,
since 1712; — and a steady and firm maintenance of one line of policy
by all administrations, as a matter on which party politics could have
no bearing, has always produced the effect of bringing about in a short
period of time, perfect satisfaction among the great bulk of educated
and thinking and religious men.
The change to popular choice, for such is the alternative. Is now
proposed to be made In times when the evils will be Incomparably
greater than at any other period of society, and when the risks to the
Church are far beyond what they could formerly be, inasmuch as the
elements of division and strife, of heat and contention, and of excitement
in every form, are multiplied to so fearful a degree.
Preserve our Church at least from the operation of such evils.
Firmness has done it before — the same quality will do it again.
A sense of the necessity of preventing the increase of Ecclesiastical
power and influence, has been one great object of the policy pursued
in regard to the Church of Scotland, by all successive administrations
of the country since the Revolution ; and a change which will intro
duce such an engine in the present day, is one of the greatest evils
with which society can be threatened, or by which the Interests of Re
ligion can be Impaired.
Your Lordship has seen how the proposals of the Committee, and the
whole proceedings of the Church tend to that result.
286
The way in which the Church approach the Legislature, is by an act
of open usurpation of power and of defiance of the law.
There cannot be a more serious consideration for the Legislature or
Government of the country than the resolution of the Established
Church, — (1.) not to perform the duties Imposed on it by the statutes
which are the origin of the E]stabllshment ; and (2.) that the Church
may both Interpret these statutes in the way it pleases, and act upon
that interpretation.
There are many objects which the ' ecclesiastics' in Scotland have in
view, which, on the same principles, they may proceed in like manner
to accomplish.
Is the Government to permit them to triumph in their present at
tempt to carry their object by open defiance of the law, and to succeed
by the very extremities to which they have had recourse ?
The agitations of the present time have not raised a question of more
serious import to the liberties of the country, and to the interests of re
ligion, than that which the Church of Scotland has forced upon the
country. There is a plain, practical course to be followed — Let the law be
obeyed and enforced.
The great security for the due regulation of all Bodies in the State,
is the authority of statute law ; and in regard to the limits of the juris
diction of such an institution as a National Church, there is no pro
tection against the greatest abuses and the utmost perversion of the
objects for which it is established, if the Church shall be permitted to
refuse by public resolution to perform the duties imposed on it.
The progress which has been made since 1834, on the part of the
Church, in throwing off the restraints by which its jurisdiction had
been previously kept within its prescribed limits, has been indeed ra
pid ; but that progress is only a proof of the great hazards to the Interests
of civil and religious liberty, when these limits are not strictly enforced.
It was said, incidentally, but very emphatically, by Dr. Mearns, in
September 1834, ' However the magnitude of subsequent innovations
' may throw into obscurity those which have preceded, the ecclesiastical
' proceedings of 1834 can hardly fail to be memorable in this country,
' as having effected the first practicable breaches in those barriers, which
' the wisdom of our ancestors, profiting by the events of former seasons
' of disturbance, erected for securing the safety of the Church, the de-
' liberate and balanced exercise of her legislative powers, the constltu-
' tlonal and exclusive rights of her judicatories, and the reputation of
' her ministers and probationers.' Let us take warning in time by the
consequences which have so soon resulted from these barriers being bro
ken down, and resist, before the disturbance to the social system Is
287
greater, the systematic attempts of the Church to erect Its own autho
rity above the controul of the Law.
To one topic I must advert in conclusion.
In the present state of political parties, symptoms have appeared
among some adherents of each, of attempts to court support from the
Church, by giving vague encouragement to plans which neither party
have probably the least desire to take up as party questions, or the least
intention to carry through.
And, on the other hand, by some of the clergy indications have been
manifested of a wish to make each party look to the support of the Church
in politics, as the reward for aiding them In the attainment of their pre
sent objects.
Some Whigs and some Conservatives, though very few of either party,
have shewn a sort of rivalry which should bid highest for the support
of the Church in the present crisis : And in one or two movements in
expectation of elections, a few of the clergy have more or less indirectly
attempted to Interfere, and to influence the views of electors by appeals
to them on these questions. •
There is nothing against which both parties should so strenuously
guard as the interference of the clergy of the Church of Scotland to any
extent in political elections. Such interference will only tend to
strengthen the power and influence of ' ecclesiastics,' and to enable the
Church to wield a direction and controul which will be most injurious
to the welfare of society and to the Interests of religion.
For party purposes, the attempt by the adherents of either party to
gain support from the clergy, by taking up the questions at present
agitated by the latter, will be eminently fruitless. Neither party will
get the slightest credit for sincerity in their attempts ; while such of the
clergy as can bring themselves to Interfere in politics in order to pro
mote these Church objects, and to resort to such means for these ends,
will only have in view to make themselves of Importance — to keep up
and strengthen the influence they thereby acquire, — to convert the in
fluence of the Church over the minds of the people into an engine,
which they may wield against both parties, and to revive that state of
things which, two centuries ago, shewed the evils of such sway being in
the hands of a Presbyterian Church.
It would be difficult to say, to the principles of which of the great
parties in the State any such attempt to court support, by encourage
ment to the present proceedings oi the Church, would be most alien.
But the men guiding the present extraordinary proceedings on the
part of the Church, know well that, if they carry their objects, they will
in truth be indebted to neither party,— that if they receive support, it
288
will be by extorting reluctant aid — that they will triumph by the bold
ness of their resolution to set the law at defiance, — and that any aid they
may receive is the result of concession by those who either dread the ex
tremities to which the Church are hurrying, or unwillingly court them,
in order to cast the balance between two parties, to either of whom (It Is
thought by some partlzans) any aid Is a great gain.
To neither party will the Church feel in the smallest degree indebted
—and even if any considerable portion of the clergy were disposed to
mix In politics, neither party would have the slightest hold over them,
in consequence of aiding them in obtaining the changes which they now
desire. Some of the clergy, and some of those who go along with them in
their present proceedings, no doubt, hold out very openly the importance
of their aid, and declare that they will throw their weight, in elections,
into the scale of the candidates who will pledge themselves to their
objects. It betrays a great ignorance of the state of things in Scotland, to
suppose that any weight can be derived to either -party from the inter
ference of the clergy of the Established Church in any political matters.
The influence of the clergy in Scotland arises wholly from character. In
terference in secular mattters beyond their proper sphere and province,
which has hitherto been very rare and unusual, is always looked upon
with great jealousy and dislike : The middling and lower orders, in an
especial manner, disapprove of the minister mixing himself up with
things which do not belong to religion : They do not like that the influ
ence, which his sacred character gives him, should be brought to bear
on secular matters, and to controul and direct them in such affairs. I
am firmly persuaded that, wherever they have hitherto interfered, the
result has been prejudicial to the very interest or to the very individual
they were supporting, — while their interference increases the alienation
and hostility of parties, who may not be inclined to support the candi
date, whom the clergy befriend.
Those of the clergy who may have opposed the measures of the pre
sent Government, as, in their opinion, injurious to the interests of reli
gion, could not, with the slightest prospect of retaining weight or respect
111 the opinion of their neighbourhood, suddenly support a liberal can
didate, because he promised to carry through the Veto for them.
Those who are at present disposed to aid the Government would
bring on themselves equal discredit, if, while they approved of their
measures, they were to aid a Conservative because he threw out to them
the bait of this question.
The clergy can make no sudden or marked change In politics, without
suffering in character more than any other class, for it is only a sense
of the general dangers of a particular crisis which will ever reconcile any
man to interference by them.
289
The idea, then, that either party could gain by taking up the ques
tions I have been discussing, in order to obtain support from the clergy,
is a very idle, and not very creditable, speculation.
The electors of Scotland again, are in no degree disposed to take up
the Veto at .all — much less with any view to politics, or to make any
change of opinions on account of it, — and the more the clergy in
terfere, the less will the electors be inclined to support them.
While the interference of the clergy would aid neither party, I am
also persuaded, first, that very few of the clergy would act such a
part ; and, secondly, that they would find that there was no such degree
of interest as they imagine on these questions among electors.
The last meeting of the Commission completely proved how vain is
the expectation that either party will get support from the Church by a
sacrifice of their general opinions, in return for concessions upon the
subject of the Veto. The meeting was numerously attended by the
supporters of the Veto. The report was read, of the supposed encourage
ment given to the Deputation by Lord Melbourne. Immediately after
wards, a petition against the Government plan of education was proposed,
on the same grounds on which it has been objected to in England. One
or two ministers broached as an objection to any condemnation of the
scheme, that they must endeavour to get the aid of Government in
carrying their questions of Jurisdiction and the Veto, and that they
might embarrass the success of these measures by opposition at present
to the Government.
Dr. Chalmers strenuously disclaimed any such rule of conduct, and
declared that he would never seek to attain the one object by the impro
per surrender of any principle connected with another. The result was,
that the vote for a petition against this Government measure was carried
unanimously, after an attempt at opposition by one or two supporters of
the Government among the lay members.
Whatever objections may be entertained to the proceedings of the
majority in the Church Courts, which I have detailed in these pages,
he must be most ignorant of the clergy of Scotland, who supposes that
their support is to be bought on any such grounds, or by any of the
attempts to court them, which have been made by some of the ad
herents of both parties, or that any portion of tbem, beyond a few
individuals, whose interference probably would equally take place from
other causes, will ever join In political contests in return for aid on par
ticular questions, and without reference to their general opinions on the
questions of vital interest to the country.
Permit me, my Lord, finally, in reference to all the proposed changes
in the Polity of the Church, which are so vehemently pressed upon the
Legislature, to request your attention to the emphatic terms in which Sir
290
Henry Moncreiff closes his review of the discussions whlchj In former
days, had agitated the Church of Scotland respecting the appointment
of ministers, and which, near the close of his useful life, he expressed
his hope had terminated for ever.
' Amidst all the diversities of opinion, and the division of parties on
' particular subjects, which appear In the preceding Pages, it cannot
' be denied, by those who are competent to judge on the subject, that
' the practical effect of the Church Establishment in Scotland, on the
* general information of the people, on their private morals, and on
' their religious character, equals, if it does not surpass, whatever can
' be imputed, in the same points, to any other church in the world.
' This is the most important fact which can be stated; and,
' in comparison with this fact, every other feature in the laws or practice
' oi any ecclesiastical body is equally unimportant and uninteresting.' '
I have the honour to be.
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most obedient servant,
JOHN HOPE.
APPENDIX.
APPENDIX.
Dr. Cook's Resolution in the General Assembly of 1833.
That the General Assembly declare, that in all cases in which a per
son is presented to a vacant parish, it is by the law of the Church,
sanctioned by the law of the land, competent for the heads of families
in full and regular communion with the Church, to give in to the Pres
bytery within the bounds of which the vacant parish lies, objections of
whatever nature against the presentee, or against the settlement taking
place ; that the Presbytery shall deliberately consider these objections ;
that if they find them unfounded, or originating from causeless preju
dices, they shall proceed to the settlement ; but if they find that they
are well founded, that they reject the presentation, the presentee being
unqualified to receive It, it being competent to the parties to appeal
from the sentence, if they see cause.
II.
Note A, to Sir H. Moncreiff's Brief Account of the Consti-
TUTION OF the Church of Scotland, and of the Questions con
cerning Patronage and the Secession.
It will not perhaps be useless to mention generally the preparatory
studies and qualifications required in candidates for the ministry In
the Church of Scotland. They were at all times in substance what
they are at present ; and it will be sufficient for the purpose of this
note, to mention the general laws on the subject, as it now stands, with
out taking notice of accurate regulations, originating in particular c^ses,
and introduced at different times.
A young man intended for the Church, after completing his education
at a Grammar School, is required, before he enters on the study of Theo
logy, to attend a University at least four years. During that time, he
is supposed to complete his studies in the Greek and Humanity classes,
and afterwards to apply to the study of Logic, Moral Philosophy, and
Natural Philosophy, taking along with these any other branch of know-
ledge with which the University furnishes him, subservient to his
studies in these different departments.
He is not allowed to become a student in Theology till he has com
pleted the course of literature and philosophy. He is then placed in
the Divinity College ; and besides the prelections in Theology which
he must attend, he has also to study in the classes of Church History
and Oriental Languages.
This course of study In Theology requires an attendance of four
years ; and till it is completed, he cannot be received on probationary
trial, or receive a license to preach.
If his attendance on the Divinity College has not been uniform or
regular, a longer period of study is required. But in all ordinary
eases, a license to preach cannot be applied for, till after the study of
at least eight years, (including the classical and philosophical course,)
at one or other of the Universities.
After this time, a young man is proposed to the Presbytery under
which he resides, as a proper person to be received on probationary
trial, with a view to his receiving the character of a preacher, and he
must then produce regular certificates from the University, not only of
his attendance during the time prescribed by law, but of his good char
acter, and of his having performed the exercises required in the Divinity
College. The proposal of receiving him on trial must be at least a
month on the table, before it is considered, that time may be given to in
quire into the character of the candidate. If at the next meeting there is
no objection made to him he is then examined, either by the Presbytery
or by a committee, on the whole extent of his preparatory studies — on
classical, philosophical, and theological knowledge. This examination
is intended to be private, and if the candidate does not acquit himself
to the satisfaction of his private examinators, he is remitted by them to
his studies, and his name is not again mentioned to the Presbytery till
he becomes better informed. If, on the other hand, the candidate
appears to possess the requisite information, the Presbytery, before they
take any other step, is then obliged to write circular letters to every
Presbytery within the bounds of the Synod to which it belongs, in
timating the intention of taking the young man on probationary trial,
it the consent of the Synod shall be obtained. This must be done at
least two months before the meeting of the Synod. If the Synod, from
any thing supposed doubtful or exceptionable in the character of the
candidate, shall refuse to consent, the measure cannot be persisted in
by the Presbytery, though there may be an appeal to the Assembly.
It is scarcely conceivable, that better or more effectual precautions
can be taken, to prevent the reception of improper persons on proba
tionary trials.
But after all this has been done, if the Synod allow the candidate to
be received, his qualifications are still to be tried. Five discourses at
least are prescribed to him, which he has to deliver in public before the
Presbytery ; one of them a Latin and another a Greek exercise, one an
exposition of a portion of Scripture, and two discourses on scriptural
texts. He is then publicly examined on his knowledge of Theology,
Church History, Greek, and Latin ; or, according to a late practice,
three questionary trials are" taken before the public discourses. And it
is not till he has acquitted himself to the satisfaction of the Presbytery,
on every one of these points of trial, that he can receive a license to
preach. No institution administered by human beings is so perfect as not to
fail in particular instances. But there Is no church In Christendom In
which more effectual precautions are taken, to prevent the Introduction
of Improper persons into the clerical functions.
After a candidate has been licenced to preach, he is not put Into full
orders, till he is to be inducted into a parochial charge ; and this is not
done till he submits to a new trial of his qualifications, before the
Presbytery, within whose jurisdiction the parish to which he is pre
sented is situated. The substance of the trial prescribed for ordina
tion Is the same with those which are required for a licence to preach.
Note F to the same Work.
Besides the superintendence of the pastoral functions and personal
conduct of the clergy, after they are in possession of their benefices,
which Is vested in the Ecclesiastical Courts, there Is another power In
trusted to the Presbyteries, which Is intended to protect the Church
and the people against the introduction of clergymen who are of excep
tionable or doubtful character.
Before a minister can be inducted to a benefice, intimation must be
made from the pulpit of the Parish, that on the day appointed for his
ordination or admission, (that is, for his collation to the pastoral care
and the benefice,) any Individual parishioner may state to the Presby
tery any objection to his life or doctrine which he may think relevant,
of which the Presbytery are afterwards to judge.
When that day arrives. Intimation Is made at the principal door of
the Church, that, if there are any objections to be made to his life or
doctrine, the Presbytery are met in an adjoining house, ready to hear
and to decide on them. But In this case, the diet is peremptory ; the
objections, if they are made, must be verified instanter ; and If there
are any witnesses to support them, they must be in attendance, and
ready to be produced for examination.
If the Presbytery should find that the objections are relevant, and
are proved, they have the authority to sist their procedure, and to
refuse to go on to the induction. If the objections stated are frivolous
or unfounded, or if the proof offered is insufficient to sustain them, they
are of course dismissed, and the induction is completed.
These forms are universally and strictly observed, and cannot go in
to dissuetude. There are not many instances, indeed, in which Presby
teries find it necessary to sist their procedure at the return of an
6
edict ; though some examples there have been, at no remote period.
But every one must see the efficiency of the law, wherever there can
be a substantial reason for having recourse to it.
So effectual and complete is the superintendence under which the
Scottish clergy hold their situations in the Church.
Ill,
REASONS OF DISSENT from the Declaration or Resolution of the
General Assembly, In May 1838, in relation to the Overtures trans
mitted to it, respecting the Independence of the Church, given in
to the General Assembly, and subscribed by the Ministers and Elders,
whose names are subjoined.
We dissent from that Declaration or Resolution, for the following
reasons : —
First, Because, whilst we hold sacred the spiritual Independence of the
Church, we highly disapprove of the concluding part of the Declaration,
sanctioning, as it seems to us to do, the dangerous doctrine, that what
ever the judicatories of the Established Church may choose to compre
hend under spiritual matters, they have power to enforce by ecclesiasti
cal censures, although declared by the supreme legal tribunals of the
country to be an invasion of civil right, and consequently illegal.
Second, Because the implied, or rather the avowed purpose of pun
ishing by deprivation of license or otherwise, presentees who will not
bind themselves to submit to the Veto act, even although it should be
ultimately decerned by the House of Peers to be an infringement of
civil right, appears to us equally unjust, and beyond the powers of an
ecclesiastical court — placing such presentees without the pale, and de
priving them of the protection of law and of government.
Third, Because, with a view to the object contemplated by the
framers of the Declaration, It must eventually prove powerless ; it being
in our estimation, beyond a doubt, that the majesty of the law as to
what Is pronounced by it to be a, civil right, will be asserted in regard
to the Church, as it has often been even in regard to the proceedings of
both Houses of Parliament.
Fourth, Because the tendency of a measure which implies that the
Church can decide when, and how far the members of it should obey
the law of the land, will be, we have every reason to believe, to alienate
from the Establishment a large proportion of the most respectable and
enlightened classes of the community ; many from these classes having
already expressed a doubt, whether it be consistent with their duty to
the State, to continue in communion with a church by which such a
measure has been sanctioned and adopted ; whilst, at the same time
there is set before the people an example of what may be represented
as resistance to lawful authority, which may have the most pernicious
effects. Fifth, Because the consequence of such a declaration as that of the
General Assembly must, as we think, be to throw the most formidable
additional obstacles in the way of extending the Establishment, inas
much as the Church, in disregarding the judgments of the legal tri
bunals of the country, thereby places itself in an attitude which pre
vents it from sufficiently fulfilling one of the most important purposes
for which it was instituted.
Sixth, Because the Declaration, involving, as in our opinion it does,
the dissolution of the tie which unites the Church and State, there is
the most serious ground for apprehending, that if our ecclesiastical
judicatories persist in adhering to it, and in carrying it into operation,
this may ultimately lead to the abolition of the Establishment ; and
the people of Scotland may thus be deprived of the inestimable advan
tages which, under it, they have so long enjoyed, and which, through
the Divine blessing, have so essentially contributed to the virtue, the
happiness, and the religion of the country.
IV.
Minutes of General Assembly in the Case of Mr. Young.
At Edinburgh, the 28th day of May 1838.
(Session Ult.)
Which day the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, being
met and constituted, having resumed the Reference from the Synod of
Perth and Stirling, and the Presbytery of Auchterarder, and having
directed the minutes of their sederunt on the 24th curt, to be read ;
the Moderator inquired whether Mr. Young was at the bar. Mr.
Young appeared with the Dean of Faculty as his Counsel. A mem
ber of the House moved that the Reference from the Presbytery and
the Synod and the Protest should be read, which was done accordingly.
The Moderator then inquired whether Mr. Young had any statement
to make to the House. The Dean of Faculty read and gave in the
citation served on Mr. Young, and stated, that as the citation served
on Mr. Young did not state upon what charge or ground he was called
to the bar, he had no statement whatever to make on the subject of the
protest mentioned in the citation, until it should be intimated to them
what proceedings were to be adopted ; in which case he should repre
sent that a copy of any charge against Mr. Young should be furnished
to him, and that some person should be appointed to state the grounds
of such charge.
Parties having been heard, were removed. It was then moved,
' That the General Assembly find that the Presbytery of Auchterar-
8
' der having, in presence of the procurator of Mr. Young, found that his
' conduct in serving a protest on the Presbytery was a contempt of court,
« and he having immediately retired, when the court was about to call on
' him to withdraw it, and the whole matter, including the notarial pro-
« test, having been referred to the General Assembly, and Mr. Young
' having been cited under a deliverance on that reference to be heard on
' the subject of the said notarial protest, has no ground for stating that
' he was ignorant of the matter in respect of which he was cited ; and
' the House direct the party again to be called and party to be again
' asked — whether he has any thing to address to the House .'''
TheDean of Faculty being called upon to state whether any copy of the
Minute of the Presbytery of Auchterarder, of date the 3d April and 1st
May, and of Synod of the 17th of April, was served upon Mr. Young ?
stated that no copy of any of these papers was ever, of any date, served
upon Mr. Young ; and that no paper was served upon him whatever, but
the citation he had handed in. No copy of the motion of the Assem
bly, in virtue of which he was cited being copied in or served with the
citation. It was then moved and seconded, ' That, in respect no specific and
' distinct charge has now been prefered against Mr. Young, the General
' Assembly dismiss Mr. Young from farther attendance.' The vote
being called for, it was agreed that the state of the vote shall be first or
second motion, and the roll being called it carried first motion by a ma
jority of 138 to 127. From this judgment Mr. Bisset dissented in
his own name, and in name of alL who may adhere to him, for reasons
to be given in. Judgment was intimated.
A member of the House asked the Dean of Faculty, if he had ad
vised Mr. Young that the serving of the protest was material to the
support in the House of Lords of the judgment obtained in the Court
of Session, or to enable him effectually to maintain the conclusions of
his summons still undisposed of To which the Dean of Faculty an
swered. That not being a party at the bar he would not answer that
question. Another member of Assembly proposed to put this question
to Mr. Young, — Whether Mr. Young is prepared to say that he serv
ed the protest on the Presbytery of Auchterarder under the direction of
his legal advisers, that it was necessary or useful towards the conduct
of the case in dependence at his instance against the said Presbytery ?
The motion ' that the question be put' was seconded. The Dean of
Faculty, as Counsel for Mr. Young, desired to be heard on this pro
posal, and stated that he had never known such a question put to a
party before he was expressly informed of what he was accused ; and
therefore, he could not allow his client to answer it. It was moved
and seconded — ' That the notarial protest served on the Presbytery of
' Aucterarder manifestly arose out of the judgment pronounced by the
' Court of Session upon what that judgment declared to relate to a civil
• right, and as the General Assembly has resolved to appeal the ease to
' the House of Lords, no ecclesiastical procedure in respect of Mr. Young
' should take place, till the cause be finally decided, and, therefore, the
' General Assembly discharge Mr. Young from further attendance.'
The vote being called for, it was agreed that the state of the vote shall
be first or second motion. The roll being called and votes marked, it
carried first motion by a majority of 132 to 130. The question was then
put and answered in the following terms — That Mr. Young, not being
aware of the extent to which his interests in future proceedings may be
compromised, begs respectfully to say, that he is not prepared to answer
that question, especially as the answer may be founded on to criminate
himself if given in one way.
After some explanations as to the object for which the last question
was put, Mr. Young, protesting that he is not answerable for the step
he has taken, now states, that the step he took was by the advice and
direction of the Counsel employed by him in the cause, viz. the Dean
of Faculty and Mr. Wigham. It was then moved, that in respect of
the statement now made at at the bar by Mr. Young, the General As
sembly resolve not to proceed farther against him in reference to the
said notarial protest, and discharge him from farther attendance at the
bar.
The course which took place upon the last motion was thus reported
in the newspaper of the day — Courant, 31st May 1838 :
The House then divided, when there appeared.
For Mr. Dunlop's morion, . . 132
For Dr. Cook's motion, . . . 130
Majority, . . . 2
Dr. Lee then read the question proposed to be put, whether Mr.
Young was prepared to say, that he had served the notarial protest on
the Presbytery of Auchterarder under the direction of his legal advisers,
that it was necessary or useful in conducting the case now In depen
dence against said Presbytery at his instance ?
The Dean of Faculty read the following answer : — Mr. Young not
being aware of the extent to which his interests in future proceedings
may be compromised, begs respectfully to say, that he is not prepared
to answer that question, especially as the answer may be founded on to
criminate himself if given in one way. — The motion carried did not
advance matters one step. They could do nothing on the last vote.
The House would observe that the question was put thus, whether Mr.
Young is prepared, &c. — (Laughter.)
^ The Dean of Faculty said, he was induced to trouble the House
With some observations in consequence of a remark by a member be
hind him, which induced him to think some members thought they
could now get hold of Mr. Young on the ground of contumacy in not
answering a question which the Assembly had found he must answer.
They were mistaken. If the question had been — whether Mr. Young
was bound to answer ? he (the Dean) would have felt bound to consi
der it while the debate was going on. — But he had no intention of in
volving Mr. Young in what the House might consider as a new mat*
ter of contumacy — far from it ; he had no such intention. Mr. Young
entertains the deepest reverence for this House, and if any reverend
10
member, of weight and authority in the House, were to intimate that
in propriety Mr. Young should, /toot the respect due by a probationer
to the Assembly, without regard to any supposed obligation, answer
that question, then, of course, out of respect to the House, Mr. Young
will answer it.
Mr. Montelth— -In respect of the false position in which we are now
placed, and as I may not be a member of weight, I therefore ask you,
the Moderator, to put the question a second time. (Cries of ' No, no.')
Dr. Cook knew the respect which his excellent friend at the bar had
for this House, and if put on the footing of respect for theHouse, he
felt assured he would advise his client to answer the question.
The Dean of Faculty, hav'vag first inquired whether there was any
other question, and being answered in the negative, said, that Mr.
Young, protesting that he Is not amenable for the step he has taken,
now states that the step he took was by the advice and direction of the
counsel employed by him in the cause, viz. Mr. Wigham and the Dean
of Faculty.Mr. Montelth said, notwithstanding the ridiculous position in which
they might be thought to have placed themselves, he felt that the
Church had done her duty manfully. She had made a declaration of
her principles, and expressed her determination to follow up these prin
ciples, and he felt not the slightest difficulty in moving that the As
sembly supersede all further proceedings in reference to this protest.
The 'Dean of Faculty then said with some warmth, that any such
proceeding, as superseding merely proceedings as to this protest, was a
breach of the understanding, on which alone he had allowed Mr.
Young to answer the question, out of the respect oi a probationer for
the General Assembly, and that he would not have done so, if he had
not understood that all proceedings on this protest were to be at once
dropped. Mr. Montelth said, that though the Dean had misunderstood him at
least; yet, after what he had now said, he would drop all. proceedings
whatever as to the protest.
The motion was unanimously agreed to ; and the Dean of Faculty,
with Mr. Young, left the bar.
Observations by Sir Henry Moncreifp on Act of Assembly
1736, AT page 61 OF 'A Brief Account,' &c. Edition 1833.
It is scarcely conceivable, that the act passed at this time could have
done more than soothe the discontent of the people by conciliatory lan
guage, unless more had been attempted than perhaps was practicable,
and unless the act had been followed up by a train of authoritative de-
11
cisions — which was far from being intended. It does appear, however,
that for some years after this time, the sentences of the Assemblies in
the settlement of ministers, are expressed in a more guarded and soften
ed tone than had been usual during some of the preceding years. They
discover more solicitude to deal tenderly with the people, and not to ir
ritate their humours by unnecessary exertions of authority. To this
extent the enactment appears to have had some effect ; and It ought
perhaps in candour to be admitted, that the majority of those who were
concerned in it might, at the time, have imagined it possible to do more
to connect the settlement of ministers with the consent of the people,
which it supposed to be essential, than was afterwards found practicable,
even by themselves. At the same time, it is equally evident, that the
members of the Church who had been most determined in disregarding
the opposition made to the induction of presentees, if they concurred in
this enactment, as they seem to have done, could have intended it as
nothing more than a concession in words to the prejudices of the people,
without any view to its influence on their decisions in particular cases,
or to such a change of system as could have had any practical effects.
EDINBUaOii: — PRINTED BV BALFOUR AND JACK.
YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
3 9002 04077 3666
• j:
m*J
-wf«, ^-, ^*5t*yj«^i
J 13
,f C ~M