LIBRARY OF PRINCETON THE OLOGICAL SEMIN ARY BX9072 .B92 1849 v. 2 Ten years' conflict; being th history of the disruption of OF Scotland / by Robert Bucha THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. THE -^^^^^^Q. TEN YEARS' CONFfclOT BEING THE HISTORY OF THE DISRUPTION THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. EGBERT feUCHANAN^ D.D. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II. BLACKIE AND SON: QUEEN STREET, GLASGOW; SOUTH COLLEGE STREET. EDINBURGH; AND WARWICK SQUARE, LONDON. MDCCCXLIX. CONTENTS OF VOL. II. CHAP. TX. THE COLLISION. The Conflict thickens — the evil of unsettling ecclesiastical authority — practical con sequences, ....... Auchterarder case appealed to House of Lords — ^judicial opinion of Lord Brougham — fiuds no difRculty in the case— theory on which his judgment tiu-ns. His view of QuaUfication — its technical meaning, His contempt for the right of Call — slights the opinion of Lord Jeffrey, . The question of jmnsdiction, — his lordship makes it worse for a Presbytery in Scot land than for a bishop in England — holds the Chuixh courts to be as much subject to the civil, as the Com-t of Session to the House of Lords, The weaker party must go to the wall, .... Admits there are no precedents, — Lord Cottenham concm-s iu Lord Brougham view of the case, ....... What was imphed in this decision as interpreted by the opinions of the Chancellors, An important ciisis for the Church — the Assembly 1839, Dr. Muir's sermon. Dr. Cook and Dr. Chalmers enter the lists — Dr. jluir's proposal. Dr. Cook's motion and speech — the speech examined, Speech of Dr. Chalmers — his appeal to the aristocracy of Scotland — what is to be done — the decision has taken away ground he would otherwise have agreed to fall back upon, . . . ... Reviews the judicial speeches — points out strange errors in that of Lord Brougham Dr. C.'s motion, ....... Conclusion of his speech vindicates the policy and philosophy of the veto. Dr. Muir's motion and speech, ..... Speech of Dr. Candlish in reply to Dr. Muir, Other speakers, ...... The division, ....... Lord Dalhousie withdraws from the House, Other measures of the Assembly — Church Extension — Union with Seceders, Deputation to Government — Report to the Commission in August — Lord Bel haven's letter — hopes expressed by Committee, Dr. Cook accuses Government of opposing the law. Discussion on the same subject in the House of Lords, . Pamphlet of Dean of Faculty — its offensive charges — answer of Dr. Chalmers, Lethendy case — its history — Mv. Kessen's ordination interdicted by civil court — Principal M'Farlan's conduct in a similar case. The case reported to August Commission of 1838 — Presbytery ordered to disregard the interdict — Dr. Brunton's speech. The Dean's threat to the Presbytery — Mr. Stu-ling of CargiU's speech — Mr. Kessen ordained, ....... The Presbytery dragged to the bar of the Court of Session as crimiuals^the scene in the court, ...... The Marnoch case — its history, .... The case brought before the Commission — resolutions and speech of Mr. Candlish — moves suspension of the Strathbogie ministers, . . . 1 9—11 12 13 14, 15 16, 17 18,19 20—27 28—32 33—37 38, 39 40—46 48 49—52 53, 54 55 56—60 61, 62 63—68 69 70—72 73—80 81—84 )— 94 95—98 99—101 02—120 VI CONTENTS or VOL. II. Speeches of Dr. Lee, Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Bryce, Dr. Muir, . . 121—126 The suspension carried, . . . . . . .127 Notarial protest of suspended ministers, . . . . .128 Their appeal to the courts of law — what they ask — the first Strathbogie interdict, 129 — 131 Second interdict applied for — opinions of Lords Murray and GiUies — contrary opinion of Lord FiJlerton — interdict granted, ..... 132 — 134 A statesman's opinion of this interdict, ...... 135 The interdict considered in March Commission of 1840— conduct of suspended ministers, &c. ....... 136 — 140 CHAP. X. THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. Movement of the people in support of the Church — petitions to parliament — reso- lutions of students of di\anity — the newspaper? — the pamphleteers, . 141 — 144 Great meeting in Glasgow — speeches — the Dean's views examined, . 145 — 150 Deputation to Government from Non-intrusion Committee — interviews with Lord Jlelbourne and Lord J. Russell, ..... 151 — 155 Perthshire election, ....... 156—158 Renewed negotiations with Government — Scotch liberal members wish Government to legislate — Government hesitates — reconsiders — refuses, . . 159 — 163 Negotiations with Lord Aberdeen — begun with Committee in Edinburgh in Januaiy, 1840 — their subsequent correspondence — the misunderstandings — the efforts of the Committee and of Dr. Chalmers to make themselves understood — they seem at length to have succeeded, ...... 164 — 172 Interview of the deputation with Lord Aberdeen in London, after Government had declined to legislate — Lord Aberdeen favourable to the positive call — his lord- ship's views on this point undergo a sudden change, . . . 173, 174 Lord Aberdeen resolves to bring in a Bill, on his own exclusive responsibility, into the House of Lords — shews it to Mr. Hamilton and Rev. R. Buchanan — their judgment upon it, — and their remonstrance to Lord Aberdeen, . 175 — 180 The Bill, unchanged, is brought in on the 5th of May, 1840 — his lordship's letter on the subject, to Dr. Chalmers, — Dr. C. replies, and condemns the Bill — further correspondence on the subject — painful chai'acter of these proceedings, . 181 — 188 The true import of the Bin, ...... 189—190 CHAP. XL THE ASSEMBLY OF 1840 AND THE REJECTION OF LORD ABERDEEN'S BILL. Meeting of the Assembly — speech of Dr. Chalmers — her spiritual independence the glory of the Church of Scotland — it cannot be surrendered, . . 191 — 194 Non-intrusion — the way Lord Aberdeen's BiU deals with it — Dr. C.'s resolutions, 195 — 197 Sir George Clerk's speech and Mr. Dunlop's reply, . . . 198 — 201 Dr. M'Leod — the M'ljeods and M'Donalds, and the cave of Eigg — an Edinburgh church and the Highland accent — Rev. Mr. Robertson, of EUon, spoils the story, ........ 202—204 Rev. Dr. Simpson — his views then — Rev. J. Begg of Liberton's speech, . 205, 206 Rev. J. Hunter's argument for the Bill, and the answer to it, . . 207 — 21 0 Dr. P. M'Farlan's speech — Principal M'Farlan enamoured of the Bill — Rev. Dr. Paterson illustrates, by the story of the Border baron, the forced settlements that would be made by the Bill — the concealed passage to the Court of Session, 211, 212 Rev. Dr. Barr tm'us out, to the surprise of the Moderate party, to be on their side —the Bill rejected by the Assembly, ..... 213, 214 Lord Aberdeen stLU presses the BiU in the House of Peers — attacks the Non-intru- sion Committee— Committee's petition against the Bill, . . 215—218 Marqm's of Breadalbane supports the Petition — his services to the Chm-ch, . 219 The Bill withdrawn, ....... 220—222 Duke of Wellington's views upon the Church question, . . . 223, 224 CONTENTS OF VOL. II. y[[ Narrative returns to the Assembly — the Strathbogie case — speeeli of Mr. Patrick paib Robertsou, coimsel for Ibe suspended ministers, with remarks on the same, 225 — 230 Dr. Cook's speech — challenges the power of the Commission — Rev. J. Begg replies, 231, 382 Rev. Dr. Anderson, of Newbm-gh — Rev. Dr. M'Farlan — the Procurator's amend- ment carried against Dr. Cook's motion, and the sentence of Commission con- fii-med, ........ 233, 234 Further proceedings in the case — Mr. Dunlop's speech — vindicates the power of the Commission — reminds Dr. Cook of the Inverkeithing case — notices conduct of the Strathbogie ministers in refusing a conference — his motion, . 235 — 243 Dr. Cook's speech — the duty of an established church to submit to the courts of law — his amendment that the suspension be removed, . . . 244, 245 Dr. Patrick M'Farlan answers Dr. Cook — the other speakers — the motion of Mr. Dunlop carried, ....... 246—249 Dr. Cook's reasons of dissent-^ the principles they embody — a Committee appointed to answer these i-easons, ...... 250 — 252 Committee appointed to confer with the suspended ministers give in their report — Dr. P. M'Farlan's speech — the motion carried to continue the suspension of the seven ministers, and to instruct the Commission to libel them, if they continue contumacious, ....... 253 — 256 The com'age and constancy of the Assembly illustrated, . . . 257, 258 CHAP. XII. THE MODERATE LEAGUE. &c. The Moderate party make common cause with the Strathbogie ministers — Eras- tianism of the party now more avowed, .... 259 — 261 Speech of Sir R. Peel hostile to the Chm-ch — Mr. Fox Maule's reply — the Lord Advocate Rutherford defends the Church, .... 262—266 The Moderate party encouraged by the sentiments of Sir R. Peel to disregard the authority of the Church— the Moderate League, . . . 267, 268 The Engagement entered into by the Non-intrusionists, . . . 269 — 278 Importance of this movement, and its effect on the Moderate leaguers, . 279, 280 The Commission — the Strathbogie ease — the Procurator's motion to libel the seven ministers — Dr. Cook resists it — his argument and its answei-, . 281 — 284 Speech of Mr. Christie, of Durie — the picquet of defence and the Strathbogie i-unaways — Dr. Simpson supports the motion to libel — the causes of his aston- ishment ihen aud now, ....... 285, 286 Mr. Makgill Crichton — Dr. Chalmers notices the speech of Sir R. Peel — the en- thusiasm produced by Dr. Chalmers — the ancient spirit of Scotland sm-vives, 287 — 290 Dr. Chalmers continues his address — retm-ns to Sir R. Peel — is becoming a convert to anti-patronage, ........ 291, 292 Other speakers — the motion to libel carried, ..... 293 The Strathbogie case in the November Conmaission — the defences put in — relevancy of the libel sustained, and proof ordered to be taken in March, . . 294 Subsequent proceedings — action of damages against Strathbogie Presbytery raised by Mr. Edwards, the presentee to Marnoch — the suspended ministers appear in court, and express their willingness to settle him — opinions of the Judges — the com-t orders the Presbj-tery to proceed, .... 295 — 298 Rev. W. Cunningham's speech on this subject in Presbytery of Edinburgh — hopes the Strathbogie ministers wiU ordain in name of the Court of Session — speeches on same subject in Presbytery of Glasgow — Rev. Dr. Leishman, of Govan, repro- bates the proceedings of the Court of Session, . . . 299 — 304 The Marnoch intrusion — the scenery — the day of the forced settlement — the right of the suspended ministers to act challenged by the congregation — ^the dialogue — the remonstrance of the people — the parishioners leave the Chm-ch in a body — sensation produced — they meet in a field, among the snow, and then peacefully retire to their homes, ...... 305 — 314 323 ^[[[ CONTENTS OF VOL. II. A crowd from other parishes fills tlie cliurcli — the scene that follows — the scaadal paoe done to religion, and the real authors of it — arrival of a magistrate — the pretended ordination proceeds — the vows — character of these proceedings, . 315 — 322 The March Commission — the libel found proven — the case ripened for the As sembly, ........ CHAP. XIII. THE ASSEMBLY AND THE YEAR 1811, Continued supineness of government, . . . ■ • .324 Lord Aberdeen attacks the Home Secretary for nominating Mr. Candlish to a Professorship — Mr. Candlish had preached in Strathbogie in spite of the interdict, as others, without number, had been doing for a twelvemonth — the Home Secretary yields and cancels the nomination — remarks of the Journals on this pitiful proceeding, .....•• 325 — 329 Mr. CancUish's letter to the Home Secretary, .... 330 — 333 Lord Dunfermline presents petition of the suspended ministers of Strathbogie, and assails the Church — Lord Aberdeen lends his aid — Lord Roden defends tlie Church — Lord ^Melbourne declines to move, .... 334, 335 The Dnke of Argyll's Bill for the settlement of the Church question, brought into House of Lords 6th May, 1841 — the provisions of the Bill— speeches of the Peers for and against it — read a first time, .... 336 — 339 The General Assembly — Dr. Gordon chosen as Moderator — proceedings — the debate on Patronage — speech of Rev. Mr. Cunuingham, . . 340 — 342 Rev. D. MakeUar's amendment— Dr. Cook's speech — will not face the scripture argument, — remarks on his views, ..... 343 — 346 ]\Ir. MakgiU Crichton replies to Dr. Cook, .... 347, 348 Other speakers — the division — Mr. Cunningham's motion lost by 135 to 138 — progress of the Anti-patronage cause, .... 349 Duke of Argyll's Bill — remarkable speech of Mr. Candlish — his appeal to the ilodei'ate party — the impression made on the house, . . . 350 — 357 Dr. Brunton and Dr. Hill commend the tone and spirit of Mr. Candlish, but will concede nothing —Di-. Hill's amendment, .... 358 — 360 Rev. R. Lee, of Campsie, responds to the appeal which Mr. Candlish had made — Rev. Mr. Robertson, of Ellon, opposes the motion of Mr. Candlish — speech of Rev. Mr. Cunningham — the motion of Mr. Candlish carried, . 361 — 366 The Strathbogie case — speech of the counsel at the bar, . . 367, 368 Speech of Dr. Chalmers — What is at stake in this case — the plea of conscience as used to vindicate the Strathbogie rebellion — that plea would rob the Church both of her creed and government — the case admits of no compromise — the motion finding the libel proven, ..... 369 — 377 Dr. Cook on the doctrine of the civil magistrate's power — unlimited erastianism of his views — attempts to prove that they are the views of the books of Discipline, and of the Confession of Faith — his amendment, . . . 378 — 384 Speech of the Rev. Mr. Cunningham — three branches of the argument in support of the libel — the Strathbogie ministers had broken the laws of the Church — had violated their ordination vows — had sinned against Christ, . 385 — 394 Speech of Rev. IMr. Robertson — rebukes some of his own friends — his argument in reply to Mr. Cunningham, ..... 395—401 Mr. Dunlop destroys a defence set up for the suspended ministers by Mr. Robertson — the division — motion of Dr. Chalmers carried — paper for the accused read by one of the members, after which they retire from the bar, . . 402, 403 Sentence of deposition moved by Dr. Chalmers —pronounced by the Moderator, 404—406 Protest of Dr. Cook, and others, against the sentence — considered by the house — its offensive character— :\Ir. Duulop's remarks ou it— Dr. Cook intimates that they do not intend, at present, to act on it, . . . . 407, 408 Mr. Edwards, of Marnoch, deprived of his license, . . . ' 409 CONTENTS OF VOL. II. ix Interdict attempted to be served on the Assembly — the Commissioner sent for — tbe paob Messenger at Arms retires — the scene in the Assembly, . . 410 — 413 Resolutions in reference to the interdict proposed by Mr. Candlish — opposed by Dr. Cook — carried — character and spirit of the Assembly, . . 414 — 416 Lord Aberdeen attacks the Assembly in the House of Lords — Lord Brougham — Marquis of Breadalbane — Duke of Argyll, . . . . 417 Vote of censure carried by Sir R. Peel against the government, 22d June, 1841 — Parliament dissolved — the Elections — the Church question, and Sir R. Peel's views of it, commented on at the hustings — letter addressed, in consequence, by Sir R. Peel to Duke of Argyll, and by Mr. Dunlop to Sir R. Peel — Elections seal the fate of Whig ministry, ...... 418—424 A document wliich, meanwhile, comes to light — reveals the hollowness of Dr. Cook's truce — proposals made in this document to the government, . 425 — 427 August Commission — the conduct of leading moderate ministers who had recently held ministerial communion with the deposed brethren, considered — Mr. CandUsh's speech and motion, ... . . 428 — 433 ]h\ Cook pi'otests, and threatens that he and his friends will now appeal to Parliament — a special meeting of commission called and held — Dr. Brunton condemns the conduct of Stratlibogie brethren — speech of Rev. Dr. P. M'Farlan — comments on the threatenings of Dr. Cook — exhorts his brethren to stand fast to their principles, and to trust in thek great King and Head — moves resolutions suited to this emergency, ...... 436 — 439 Motion seconded by the Rev. Dr. Brewster of Craig — his speech — that of Dr. Chalmers — resolutions carried all but unanimously, . . . 440 — 442 Great meeting in the evening, in St. Cuthbert's Church — 1200 office-bearei's present — Dr. Gordon's address from the chair of the meeting, . 443 — 445 Meeting in Glasgow — letter from Duke of Argyll to chairman — movement thi'oughout the country in support of the church, . . . 446 The Culsalmond case — its history — Mr. Middleton the presentee, — serious nature of the special objections against him — Presbytery of Garioch disregai'd objections both general and special — the intrusion — another Marnoch — the scene in the Church — the Presbytery retii-e to the manse and complete the settlement with closed doors, ....... 447 — 453 Missionary statistics of the Presbytery of Garioch, . . . 454 Culsalmond case brought before the Commission in November, 1841 — Mr. Mid- dleton prohibited from officiating tiU Commission in Mai'ch, when parties are summoned to appear, ...... 454 — 455 Mr. Middleton applies for an interdict against the sentence — refused by the Lord Ordinary Ivory — his lordship's note — interdict granted by the inner court — the grounds of their judgment broad enough to cover any kind or amount of civil interference with the sentences of any Church, whether EstabKshed or not, 456 — 459 CHAP. XIV. THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS AND THE CONVOCATION. Summary of events preceding the Assembly of 1842 — Deputation sent by Non-in- trusion Committee to lay the case of the Church before the new government, in September, 1841 — interview with Sir R. Peel — unfavourable impression made upon the Deputation — part taken by the Rev. Mr. Morgan, of Belfast — services of the Irish Presbyterian Church, ..... 460—463 An episode — Sir George Sinclair volunteers his services as a negociator — his quali- fications for the office, . . . . . . .464 Brings together the Dean of Faculty and Dr. Candlish — the famous clause, a cha- meleon— its history — the Committee m-ged to give an opinion of it, and decline to do so — communication authorized to be made to the Committee regarding it by Sir .James Graham — the Committee's reply — it comes to nothing, . 465-^71 X CONTENTS OF VOL. II. Mr. Hope re-opens a correspondence with Dr. Candlish — the real state of things begins to appear — the two parties as far apart as ever — the clause a sham, 472 — 475 Discussions in the House of Commons on Scotch Church question in March, 1842 — speech of ]\Ir. Campbell, of Rlonzie, in reply to the menace of Sir J. Graham, 476, 477 Duke of Argyll's BiU transferred to House of Commons, and brought in by Mr. Campbell, of Monzie, 14th April, 1842 — second reading fixed for 4th May — government request Mr. Campbell to postpone the second reading, on the ground that they now entertain the hope of being able to bring forward a satis- factory measure, ........ 478, 479 Mr. Campbell consents — the speech of Sir J. Graham awakens suspicions — Mr. Maule and others oppose the postponement — the postponement carried, 480 — 482 The Torty — effect of their movement on the politicians — the Non-intrusionists are supposed to be breaking u]5 — Mr. Campbell's hands weakened in consequence, . 483, 484 The Assembly of 1842 — the Marquis of Bute the Queen's Commissioner — the de- posed mmisters attempt to hinder, by interdicts, certain members from taking their seats — the commission sent up by the deposed ministers defended by Dr. Cook and his fi-iends — indignant speech of Dr. Chalmers — Dr. Bryce goes further than Dr. Cook — Mr. Dunlop's motion to sustain the Commission from the lawful Presbytei7 of Strathbogie carried, .... 485 — 489 The interdicts again — laid on the table by those against whom they were served — Major Stewart's speech — the Assembly invite him and his coUeagues to take their seats — discussion on the subject — motion carried, . . 490 — i93 The debate on patronage — speech and motion of Rev. Mr. Cunningham — motion carried, ........ 494 — 498 The Claim of Rights — character of this document — its authorities, facts, and arguments — its declaration, protest, and appeal, . . . 499 — 506 Speech of Dr. Chalmers in moving its adoption — solemn warning and remonstrance to the rulers of the land, ...... 507 — 511 Dr. Gordon seconds the motion — the Moderate party evade the question — Dr. Cook's amendment — assumes that the complaint against the com-ts of law ori- ginates in a pure mistake — his latitudinarian views of the Headship of Christ com- mented on, . . . . . . . . 512 — 517 Mr. Dunlop's speech — the constitutional argument in support of the Claim of T^igtts, ........ 518—522 Speech of Mr. Robertson, of Ellon — the division — the Claim of Rights adopted by a majority of 241 to 110, as the claim of the Church of Scotland, . ". 523 Other proceedings of this Assembly— cases of discii)line — firmness of the Church, 524, 525 The Addi-esses of the Assembly on patronage, and the Claim of Rights transmitted to the Queen by tlie Marquis of Bute, . . . . .526 Mr. Campbell of Monzie's BiU thrown out on a technical point — aspect of this ^ffitir, ......... 527—529 Second Auchterarder case decided in August, 1842 — effect of this decision on the independence of the Church courts — Dr. Candlish's speech on the subject in Presbytery of Edinbwgh — some great step necessary to meet this crisis, 530 — 538 A Convocation of Non-intrusion ministers resolved ou — the Circulai- convening it — Commission meets on 16th November, and resolves to address government on the state of the Chm-ch, ...... 534 535 The Convocation meets on the 17th — the sermon in St. George's chm-ch — notice of Dr. M'Donald, of Ferrintosh, who conducted the devotions — Dr. Chalmers preaches — the singularly seasonable text and sermon, . . . 537 539 Convocation assembles in Roxburgh Church — sinister auguries of The Times — re- bulced by the facts — numbers and spirit of the convocationists — the two ques- tions of the Convocation — the mode of conducting its dehberations, . 540 — 542 Resolutions of the Convocation — first and second series, . . 543 — 546 The Convocation concludes its sittings in public, and explains what has been done — Memorial of the convocationists to government — the di-ama winding up, 547 — 551 CONTENTS OF VOL. 11. j^[ CHAP. XV. THE DISRUPTION. The converging lines of the Conflict now di-awing to a point, — A brief summary — paob The Stewarton case, — its origin and history — the Chapel Act had been in opera- tion unchallenged for five years — attack made upon it by ISIr. Cunningham, of Lainshaw, and other heritors of Stewarton — apply for, and obtain interdict from civil court to prevent any interference with the spiritual arrangements of the parish, ........ 552 — 556 The Presbytery, as instructed by the Assembly, disregard the interdict — the heritors complain to the court — the case heard before the whole judges — ^judicial speech of Lord Justice Clerk against, and of Lord Moncrieff for, the Chmxh — majority of the court against the Church, ..... 557 — 562 Terms in which the Church com'ts had protested against the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, ....... 562, 563 Sir James Graham's letter on the part of government, in reference to the claim of right — misapprehends and at the same time repudiates the claim — answer returned by special Commission, pointing out misapprehensions — a meeting called of the Commission of Assembly, and their documents laid on the table, ......... 564, 565 Dr. Cook moves that the names of all quoad sacra Church ministers be struck off the roll — motion refused, and Dr. Cook and his fiiends protest and withdi-aw — meaning of this movement, ...... 566 — 568 Speech of Dr. Caudlish on Sir J. Graham's letter — Dr. Chalmers calls on the fi-iends of the Church to prepare for the worst, .... 569 — 571 Claim of Rights brought under the notice of parliament, by Mr. Fox Maule, as requested by the Commission of Assembly on 7th March, 1843 — his speech — moves for a committee of inquiry, ..... 572 — 574 Speech of Sir J. Graham in reply — reiterates the sentiments of his letter to the Chm-ch — IMr. Rutherford vindicates the claim from the statutes — condemns the language of one of the judges, ..... 575 — 577 Mr. Colquhoun, of KiUermont, answered out of his own mouth, by the help of Mr. P. M. Stewart, ........ 578 Sir Wiliiam PoUett does not meet the legal argument — Speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John RusseU — Mr. Maule's motion rejected, . . 579 — 581 The Church, her claims rejected, sets her house in order, — Dr. Chalmers and the financial Committee, ...... 582 — 586 Meeting of ministers in St. Luke's Church three days before the Assembly — the protest signed by 400 ministers — the efforts made to break down the evangelical majority in the returns to the Assembly — moderate party break up Presbyteries and send double returns — political cajoleiy, &c. . . . 587, 588 The 18th of May — the Commissioner's levee — King William's picture and the revolution settlement, ...... 5S9 — 590 The sermon in St. Giles' by Dr. Welsh— his text, &c. . . . 591—593 The Moderator and Commissioner enter St. Andrew's Church : the crowd — the excitement — Dr. Welsh's address — the protest read, . . . 594 — 598 Dr. Welsh bows to the Commissioner and retires, followed by Chalmers, Gordon, and the fathers of the Church — the sensation produced — the anxiety of high officials looking on, ...... 599, 600 The void left in the Assembly — the scene in the street as the Protesters came forth — the involuntary procession — they enter the Yiee Assembly llaU — Dr. Welsh's prayer and addi'css, . . . . . . 601, 602 Dr. Chalmers chosen moderator — his address — the joy of a moral triumph — the business arranged — the deliverance achieved, and the title that perjre- tuates it, ....... . 603—608 xii CONTENTS OF VOL. II. CONCLUSION. PAOB The Bond Assembly— a sketch, ...... 608, 609 Position and treatment of the " Forty " — the Com-t of Session spunge applied to the acts and sentences of the Church — an Act rescissory as disgraceful as that of Charles II. . . . . . . . . 610—613 The hands go back on the dial from 1843 to 1762 — a retrograde revolution, . 614 The Protest — Committee appointed to answer it — three answers, but none will do — remitted to the Committee — the attempt to answer given up in despair, and finally abandoned, ....... 615—617 The Queen's letter and those who trusted to it — what it promised — Lord Aberdeen's rejected BiU — its worth — Lord Campbell's account of it, . . 618 — 620 ■the Chiu'ch manifestly 621—623 624 625, 626 627 The dispute between the law lords and the diplomatic lord; wronged between them. The Free Assembly — deed of demission. The signing of the deed, — the testimony of an onlooker, Financial aftairs of the Free Church, All the Missionaries leave the Establishment and adhere to the Free Church. great increase of the mission and education funds, . . . 628 Closing address of Dr. Chalmers to the Assembly of 1843, . . 629 Subsequent progress, and present position, of the Free Church of Scotland, — her responsibility and duty, ...... 630 — 632 APPENDIX. No. I. — The Claim of Eights, ...... 633 No. II.— The Protest, ....... 647 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. CHAP. IX. THE COLLISION. Indications had now begun to multiply of a deejDening chap.tx. and widening^ conflict. Even before the court of TJie conflict O tluckeus. session's judgment in the Auchterarder case had been yet pronounced, the spirit which gave it birth, and those views of the civil courts' pre-eminence which were developed in its progress, were already at work in other quarters, preparing materials for new disorders and still more harassing divisions. When the very foundations of authority come to be called in question, it is the sure token that a formidable struggle is at hand. The idea having once gained currency and countenance that ecclesiastical decisions were no longer to be held as final and conclusive, even upon such questions as the admission of ministers to their t^^ pemi- J. cious consf spiritual office and cure, it needed no unusual sagacity cious conse- quences likely to to foresee the consequences that must needs arise. nn?ettiin» Licentiates of a secular spirit — men who were seeking the priest's office for a piece of bread — were too likely to take advantage of the facility thus afforded them of ecclesiasti- cal autho- rity. 2 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.es. gaining a position which otherwise they could never hope to reach. As there were, moreover, ah-eady in the ministry not a few to whom the evangelical and reforming character of that career on which the church had now embarked was altogether distasteful, — to whom the stricter discipline, the more living and active ^iirtTminil piety, the increased seriousness and spirituality of this secuiarspirit new SDra, wcrc a source of continual uneasiness and encouraged l°aTn''sfau alami, — it was a thing to be counted on, that in the anTfeS- progrcss of such a controversy as had now arisen, a collision with those internally discordant elements should, sooner or later, take place. Men whose whole habits, as well as theology, belonged to the dark and dead school of the preceding century, were too ill at ease under the ascendency of principles so diverse from their own not to take advantage of the first favourable opportunity to betray their discontent. The ground of these observations will begin ere long to appear. At the assembly of 1838, two cases were brought up for review which were destined to occupy a prominent place in the struggles of the church, and to illustrate with peculiar force and clearness the great cardinal principles which were now at stake. These were the ^theniT^and ^^^^^ ^^ Lctheudy, in the presbytery of Dunkeld, and tlToifs'i- of Marnoch, in the presbytery of Strathbogie. Instead them'post. of taking them up, however, at this early staore of their poned. • Ml 1 ^ o progress, it will be more convenient to defer the account of them till it can be given in a more complete and continuous form. It will serve to keep the narrative more unincumbered and intelligible to go on at present, tracing out to its issue the fundamental case of Auch- ter- arJer case tlie House of Lords. THE COLLISION. 3 terarder, and describing the consequent proceedings chap. ix of the general assembly. The appeal was brought on in the house of lords, '^^;'jg^"J=]; by a special order of the house, on the 18th of March, 1839. Counsel being called, there appeared for the church. Sir Frederick Pollock, Mr. Pemberton, and Mr. Bell; for Lord Kinnoull and Mr. Young, the attorney-general Sir John (now lord) Campbell, Mr. Knight Bruce, and Mr. Whigham. The 2)leadings, which occupied five days, having been closed, judg- ment was delayed till the 2d of May. On that day Lords Brougham and Cottenham delivered their o judicial opinions. That of Lord Brougham was given character of in the shape of an extempore address, which, partly, ■^3'""'" no doubt, from this cause, and partly from the discur- '^^'"' ' sive character of that eminent and learned person's intellect, appears, from the report of it which has been preserved, to have been of a somewhat rambling kind. Lord Cottenham delivered his sentiments in writing, and with all the wonted calmness and gravity of an English judge. The first thing in Lord Brougham's address that must strike the reader, is the facility with which he gets at his conclusion. Alluding to the '' great divisions " which appeared on ^^^ this case in the court below, ''it does so happen," ^^^6^ observes his lordship, ''that I have been, with the ul the case. utmost diligence, seeking for difficulties and found them not, — that I have been, with all the power which I could bring to bear upon the investigation, wholly unable, and am to this hour unable, to discover wherein the very great difficulty consists." He signi- fied, moreover, that Lord Cottenham was in this a2 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. stand what it wr perplexed Chap. IX. rcspect, entirely at one with him. ''We entertain/' ^'dr^Lord^ said he, " as little hesitation in our judgment, the one ca"unde?^ as thc Other, being both of us unable to account for that the question of law now at issue having been made the subject of such a long and pertinacious discussion." - That men of such capacity and legal knowledge as Lords Glenlee, Jeffrey, Moncrieff, &c., should have had absolutely nothing, in the law of the case, to afford any ground, or colour even, for the strong and decided opinions they had been led to form upon the subject, appears to be a somewhat startling assumption. The surprise, however, which it produces, vanishes at once on examining the view of the case on which Lords Brougham and Cottenham proceeded. Grant their premises and there could be no difficulty in coming to their conclusion. The theory on which their judg- ment turned involved these two positions, — First, ^Xh" The church is, by statute, the judge of qualification in sM^siay" tfic casc of cvcry presentee to a parish, but qualifica- down, and . , i • i rS''''^' *^^^^ ^^ ^ technical term, including under it nothing therhaytng but doctriuo, literature, and life ; and excepting there- tks. '"^ fore for heresy, ignorance or immorality, the church cannot legally reject a patron's presentee. And second, the presbytery is in the same position as a bishop in the church of England, and the civil court has the same jurisdiction in the case of the one as in the case of the other. The former of these two posi- tions is fatal, of course, to the legality, not merely of the act of assembly 1834, but of the principle involved in the motion made by Dr. Cook both in The two tions their lord- * Robertson's Report, pp. 2, 3. THE COLLISION. 5 1833 and 1834 — that it was competent to the people, chap.ix. at the moderation of the call, to give in " objections of whatever nature against the presentee, or against his settlement,'' — while the latter of the positions in question carries the civil court triumphantly over all the defences of the jurisdiction of the church of Scotland. Speaking to the point of qualification, Lord Brougham observes, '' I am somewhat surprised to find, in the ^"apuS" very able and learned aro;uments from the bench below, tein"ot>eiy •' ^ • /» 1 restricted an attempt made to show that qualification is of such meanmg. extensive meaning that within its scope may be brought the whole of the matter at present in dispute, namely — the acceptableness and reception of the party pre- sented by the congregation, as finding favour in their sight. -'■ "" ""■ A man, say they, may be of such rude and stern manners, he may be so disagreeable in his habits of life, or he may be so much above his flock in his manners, and so entirely disqualified for asso- ciating with them, that they will receive no edification from his ministrations. My lords, if it amount to anything affecting his morals, his life, and conversa- tion, that comes no doubt within the meaning of quahfied. '•■ "• "■ The word qualified," continued his lordship, is not ''used in its general sense, — as you talk of a man's qualities, of his capacity, of his abihties, of his merits, — which are all general phrases, and none of them technically defined. The word ' qualified ' is • as much a known word of the law, and has as much a technical sense imposed upon it by the statutes, by the law authorities, by the opinions of commentators, by the dicta of judges, as the word qualification has when used to express the THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. right to kill game, or when used to express a right to vote in the election of a member of parliament. Literature, life, and morals, are .>» all that qualification includes. " It means a qualification in literature, life, and morals, — to be judged of by the presbytery. ""■ On this important point Lord Cottenham is not less clear. When ''the act of 1567, c. 7, ordained," says his lordship, " that the examination and admis- sion of ministers should be in the power of the kirk then publicly professed within the realm, the presen- tation of lay patronage always reserved to the just and ancient patrons; and directed that the patron should present one qualijied person within six months, other- wise that the kirk should have power to dispose the Lord Gotten- sauic to ouc qualified person for the time, — it is clear iiam takes ., wewoT'' ^""^^ ^"^^' presentation so secured to the lay patron was qualification, .j.^ |^g subjcct OTily to tlic trial and examination of the church as to the qualification of the presentee, — that is, as to his literature, life, and manners: and that the appeal given by that act to the patron against the refusal of the superintendent to receive and admit the presentee, applied only to what had been before the subject of trial and examination, that is — his qualifi- cation as to literature, life, and manners, "f The power of ''examination and admission'* of '^to thT" ministers, ratified by this statute, is declared to belong assun>ption. ^^ ^|^^ church thcu " publicly professed within the realm." Beyond all question it was a part of the public profession of that church, at the time when this statute was adopted, that no pastor be intruded on any congregation contrary to their will. The state * Robertson's Report, pp. 14, 15, 17. t Ibid, p, 4G. THE COLLISION. >j could not expect, when it recognized the right of chap. ix. examination and admission as being exclusively within the power of the church, that the church was to tram- ple upon its own avowed principles relating to that subject. There is nothing whatever about life, lite- ^finfuou of' rature, and manners, in the statute. The law makes ?nthV'°'' statutes. no such limitation of the church's power. It finds a church publicly professed within the realm. It takes it as it is, — and says nothing more than this — ' the examination and admission of ministers belong to you.' Lord Cottenham never looks at this argument. But setting out with an assumption, that " qualified," has the restricted and technical signification stated above, he carries it alonof with him to the end. It follows from this view, as matter of course, that the call has no legal foundation whatever. Not contented with denyino; to the call any legal competency or force. The can -' ^ J to I J ^ ' aiinihilated Lord Brougham, the quondam, champion of popular Ij^g,'';^^^^ rights, treats this poj^ular privilege of Scottish congre- ty'iOTd""^ gationswith contempt and scorn. ^'I will take," says mtoridicuie. his lordship, '^ an analogous instance. Mr. Attorney- general very properly alluded to the coronation. It is a decent and convenient solemnity, to present the sovereign to the people, and the people are supposed to take part in the choice, — a part, however, so im- material, that if they were all with one voice to reject, the coronation would be just as good, would go on exactly in the same way, and the rejection or recalci- tration of the assembled people would have no more weight than the recalcitration of the champion's horse in Westminster hall during the festival attending the great solemnity. It is an obsolete right which has g THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. not, witliiii the time of known history, ever been exercised by any people." And was this '•' an analo- gous instance !" Had the call ''not within the time of known history, ever been exercised by any " parish in Scotland ! Was the hereditary succession to the crown ''analogous" to a presentee's title to ordination and a cure of souls ? Would a dissent from the nation against the accession of a particular individual to the crown, equal" in point of extent and earnestness to the dissent from the parish against the settlement of Mr. Younof, be of no more effect than the kickinoj of the champion's horse when he is backed out of Westmin- Lord ster hall ! His lordship, in his judicial oration, in Brougliam's ■■■ '' orLord evident allusion to Lord Jeffrey, thought fit to say, Jeffrey. ^j^^^ -^jq kucw " liis subtlcty to bc unbounded," and " the fertility of his imagination in dealing with ques- tions, to have no limits." The world, it is believed, has already formed a pretty confident opinion, as to whether of these two distinguished personages it is, who, in his judicial proceedings, has dealt less in "subtlety, ingenuity, and fancy," and more in logic and law. But if in his " analogous instance " of the coronation. Lord Brougham's legal accuracy and precision of thought were considerably at fault, his imagination had full scope : and mounting as it did upon the " recalcitrating horse " of the champion, it furnished him with the opportunity of having a fling at those popular rights which his boasted ancestor Principal Robertson had been at so much pains to tread in the dust. Lords Brougham and Cottenham, proceeding- according to that view of the law, which they had thus laid down, regarding the restricted import of the term. THE COLLISION, 9 *' qualified minister/' and as to the consequent legal chap, ix. nullity of the call, — it is easy enough to see how they ^StanT" should have encountered, in the consideration of the imlhips" point of law, none of those difficulties which embar- found no*'^ ^ ' ^ ^ difficulty in rassed so many of the judges of the court of session, fiierejertion They were clear, accordingly, that the rejection of Mr. Youugiiie- Young was illegal. As to the other question of the civil courts' competency to pronounce upon the illegality of the proceedings of the church courts, and to assume the right of pre- scribing to them their duty in the settlement of minis- ters : Lord Brougham seemed to think any argument upon the subject altogether unnecessary. Plis theory carries him to his conclusion at once; he takes for '^^'/j^^^/j^^"." granted that when any proceeding of the church Brougham 1 .,*',..,.. tliinks their court, however strictly ecclesiastical in its own nature, rigi'ttodic- ' •' ' tatetothe or to whatever extent matters spiritual may be cdlTrtf involved in it, affects a civil right, — that proceeding, e'fdent. in its whole extent, falls under the cognizance and control of the courts of law. " The church courts," he says, '' are excluded, they are barred and shut out from any cognizance of civil patrimonial rights, and not only of civil patrimonial rights directly, but of those things which indirectly affect civil patrimonial rights." !'■'' Dealing with this question of jurisdiction, his lordship proceeds in this confident strain : '' It only now remains that I should say something respect- ing the question of jurisdiction, but I have no doubt wdiatever upon that. It is asked, ^How can the court of session interfere in a matter of ecclesiastical cogni- zance?' Prove to me, your minor, that this is a mat- * Robertson's Report, p. 32. 10 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. ter of Gcclesiastlcal cognizance, by wliicli I mean of jurisdiction excluswc ecclcsiastical cognizance. Prove to me that Church of this is a question of qualification, like the question of Scotland on . . „,..■,. ITT the same sujjiciens OF Tiiinus sufficiens m hteratura, and then i footnig with 'i' »t' ' cwhof say that the court of session will be excluded: just as ""^"^ the court of queen's bench was in Specot's case upon a quare impedit, but which court did not deem itself to be excluded (and the Common bench agreed with them) where the return to the quare impedit by the bishop was non idoneus. They would not have been excluded, even if the bishop had said schismaticus in- veteratus, much less if he had merely said nolo inducere, as the presbytery has here done." It has been always understood that this right of the civil court to compel a bishop to induct applies only to the case of a clerk, that is, to a person already in holy orders, — and that even under the royal supremacy in matters spiritual, which is the law of England, the cirar?hof bishop cannot be compelled, by any civil court in the England, in ^ . . ", wfi'Jh dvii realm, to grant ordmation to a layman, or even to one i'nmattei?' posscsslug the iuferlor orders of a deacon. And yet the'iawof Lord Brougham has no hesitation in laying down the position that in Scotland, where the crown, and con- sequently its courts, are by law declared to have no jurisdiction in matters spiritual, a presbytery may be compelled to perform an act of which ordination is a necessary and essential part ! His lordship does not think it needful to bestow any reasoning upon the point ; he employs neither argument nor evidence to support his opinion, it grows out of his theory, it be- longs to the very essence of his conception of the relations of church and state. " It is said," his lord- Makes the case worse for the Church of Scotland than even for the the land. THE COLLISION. n ship observes, " you have no means of carrying into chap. ix. effect the decree of the court of session, albeit sup- ported by the authority of the house of lords, which is a decision of parliament by its judicial character upon the subject. In other words, although you say the presbytery have acted wrong, although you say that their reason for rejecting is of no avail whatever, although you say the law is contrary to what you have supposed it to be, and although you say, deciding upon the jDCtitory part as well as the declaratory part of the summons (which however you are not called upon to do), let the presbytery induct immediately, for it has no grounds for refusing, — still it is affirmed that the presbytery may persist in refusing, and must prevail. " My lords, it is indecent to suppose any such case. Lord ■\r • 1 n 11 > Brougham You might as well suppose that doctors commons ^'^^^.Ji^^ would refuse to attend to a prohibition from the court nmchbrnmrt of queen's bench, — you might as well suppose that the decVeeV^ court of session, when you remit a cause with orders to alter the judgment, would refuse to alter it. Con- flict of laws and of courts is by no means unknown decreeofthe *' ^ House of here. We have unfortunately, upon the question of marriage, had a conflict dividing the courts of the two countries for upwards of twenty-five years, in which the court of session have held one law, and in which your lordships, and all our English judges, have held another law. The court of session in Scotland has held, and still holds, two persons to be married, whom your lordships hold not to be married. But has the court of session ever yet, when a case, which had been adjudicated by them according to their view of the law, has the court of session ever then continued the conflict, which would courts, as tlie Court of Session is bound to obey the Lords. 12 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. 15. tlieii liavG becoiiie not a conflict of law but a conflict of jDersons — a conflict of courts — in w^hicli the weaker undoubtedly would have gone to the wall? The court of session never thought for one moment of refusing to obey your orders upon this matter, whereupon they entertained an opinion conflicting with your own. For this 7'eason alone, and it is enough, I have no doubt whatever that the presbytery, when your judgment is given, declaring their law to be wrong — declaring the patron's right to have been valid, — will even upon the declaratory part of the judgment, do that which is right/'"' According to this statement, the courts of the church of Scotland stand to the courts of civil law, in the same relative position that a subordinate civil According to court stauds to a supreme civil court. The idea of a tiie churcii' distinct province as belonging to the church, and of a lias uo J- o O ' excE/''^ j^n'isdiction intrinsic and exclusive within that province, whate'^i"" is entirely set aside. With Lord Brougham the question of church jurisdiction is not one of less or more. He denies the existence of an independent jurisdiction as belonging to the church at all. He treats it as an ''indecency," even to suppose that the courts of the church of Scotland would ever dream of refusing to obey any sentence which the supreme civil court might think fit to j)ronounce; as indecent as to suppose that the court of session would refuse to bow to the judgment of the house of lords. Lord Brougham, at the same time that he is so unhesitatino- in his view of the civil court's super-eminent jurisdiction, is * Robertson's Report, pp. 38, 39. THE COLLISION. 13 obliged to admit it to be true, of all preceding decisions chap. ix. upon cases carried before the courts of law, from the ^eSs^^hat judicatories of the church, that they were '' not fruitful precedTntr of instruction for the present question;" that ^' no one of them is to be found which disposes of it and governs it; " and that in ''no one to which they relate, has the present question ever been raised." ■•' Lord Cotten- ham recites all the leading cases which had occurred in the course of last century, one after another, but is not able to adduce a single case in which the civil court had ever meddled with the ordination or induc- tion of a minister, or had ever gone one step farther tord cotten- than to determine the exclusively civil questions, — e^aiiyata 1 fur a Whose was the right of patronage ? or whose was the |-[,never- right to the stipend? And yet Lord Cottenham assets the comes to the same conclusion with Lord Brougham, right of m- ^ ' terference. stated, no doubt, in more guarded and respectful language, but still in language which bears the same meaning, — that the civil court's jurisdiction, even in a matter which involves the spiritual act of ordination, is supreme and must be obeyed. " If your lordships," said the chancellor, '* shall concur in the opinions I have expressed, and by your decision, inform the clergy of Scotland what the law really is, I cannot doubt but they will, by their conduct and example, inculcate the sacred principle of obedience to the laiu, of respect for the rights and interests of others, and of the sacrifice of private feelings to the performance of public duty."! Guided by the views and principles now exj^lained, * Robertson's Report, p. 19. t Ibid, p. C4. ^^ THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. tlieli' loi'clsliips, witliout aiij hesitation, affirmed the Thedecision iudo-meiit of the court of session. This was a grave 01 the Lourt JO aLS" event for the church. In itself, it is true, the decision went, and could go, no further than the decision of the court below. It settled the point that the rejection of a patron's presentee, solely on the ground of the dissent of the congregation, was illegal; and hence, that though the patron should refuse to present another, the presbytery could not claim, jm^e devoluto, the rio-ht to present in the patron's room, nor could any individual whom they might, in these circumstances. What this • and upon their own authority, induct into the charge decision set- ^ . . , „ . P whatltdid of the vacant parish, be entitled to the civil fruits ot not settle. ^^^ beucfice. It did not settle whether any, or what, compulsitor could be brought by the civil court to bear on the presbytery, for the purpose of controlling their ecclesiastical proceedings. Taking the decision, however, in connection with the grounds on which it was avowedly based, it could not fail to increase that anxiety and alarm to which the judicial opinions uttered the year before in the court of session, had already given rise. No one could read the speeches The judicial of Loi'd Brouo;ham and the chancellor, without being opinions of '^ ^ '^ K'dTord fully satisfied that it was not by any means the mere wenTmudi vcto-law that was now at stake, but the non-intrusion their sen- priiici^Dlc itsclf, iu cvcry shape and form of it, — and in addition to this, the church's whole right of self- government in matters spiritual. If those views of the law, regarding the rights of patrons, on which, in the court of last resort, the judgment in the Auchterarder case was expressly founded, were to be maintained, — the congregation, as such, must be pronounced to have THE COLLISION. 15 no legal standing whatever in tlie settlement of their chap.ix. minister. Their voice, whether for or against the settlement, must henceforth become a thins^of nouo;ht. Their solemn and deliberate judgment, as to the pre- sentee's unfitness to edify their souls, must be treated as a mere impertinence. Bestrode by the all-power- ful patron, and with his spur in their helpless side, they must submit to be forced out of their own parish church, in order that his useless presentee may be forced in. Their opposition, even if made with all the ^j^XS" circumstantiality of formal objections to his fitness for peqlie^^- the charo^e, could not avail, unless, indeed, it should theseuie- * . ' ' ' mentofa take the form of a libel against the soundness of his P^fepting faith or morals, and be followed out in due course of affi?"'°^ law; and even then, unless the presbytery, which might chance itself to be not very rigid in such matters, should come to be of their mind, all their efforts to exclude the obnoxious presentee must fall to the ground. Nay more, upon the principle so confidently laid down in the house of peers, of the civil court having a right to review and reverse any sentence of a church court which affected civil rights, the concur- rence of the presbytery with the people in their libel, would still leave the whole question of the settlement where it was. The case might be carried from the ecclesiastical to the civil court, and the sentence be there set aside, on the alleged ground that the charge Evenaiibei, libelled was not within the statute, or on any other of bioufiltby the thousand pleas which this right of review would '"'l^f^^ open to legal ingenuity, — and thus, a presentee libelled by the people, and convicted by the presbytery, a"aii'. might after all be carried over the necks of both, not the Church courts, mit'ht not IQ THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. iiierelj into a benefice, but into the office of the ministry, and into a cure of souls ! — that is, if any church court, even under the terrors of fine and im- prisonment, the civil court's only weapons for enforcing its decree, could be found willing to degrade itself and to jDrostitute its sacred functions, by submitting to this erastian control. ™ou.^M on" ^^ ^^^ manifestly, therefore, no ordinary crisis which the affaS of tlils fiual dccisiou in the first Auchterarder case had brought on, in the aflfairs of the church. The interval was but a brief one between the 2d of May, when that decision was pronounced, and the 16th of the same month, when the general assembly convened. Brief as it was, however, it found at its close the assembly per- fectly prepared to meet the emergency. Not only had there been much earnest consultation among those dis- tinguished men upon whom, since 1834, the res^^on- sible charge of guiding the counsels of the church had chiefly devolved, — but among the most godly members of the church there had been much earnest prayer. ^'rJpamion ^pGcial mcetiugs had almost everywhere been held, meedugof for tlic purposc of commending the assembly to the 1839. God of all grace and wisdom; and of supplicating, on behalf of its members, the spirit of love, and of power, and of a sound mind, — the spirit of faith and fidelity, and of the fear of the Lord, This memorable assembly was opened, as usual. The opening ... . semwy^aud ^^^^^ divluc worsliip, aud a sermon preached by the torw-"''' moderator of the year before. The sermon had a text singularly appropriate to the assembly in which the question was to be determined, — are the rights of the christian people, in the calling and settlement of their THE COLLISION. 17 ministers, to be utterly abandoned by the church? cuap.ix. The text was that exhortation of the apostle John contained in the 1st and 2d verses of the 4th chapter of his first epistle: '^Beloved, believe not every spirit, The text: ■*■ _ ^ 'I i- ' meant by but try the s^nrits whether they he of God, because tolpplylr many false prophets are gone out into the world. thertLTto Hereby know ye the spirit of God: every spirit that KquaiTy •' •' A ./ i good against confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is ''°*''- of God." In his discourse from these words, the preacher, the Rev. Dr. William Muir, of Edin- burgh, was at some pains to prove that the right and duty of trying the spirits, belongs not to the clergy or church rulers alone, but to the private members of the church. There can be no doubt, indeed, that in asserting this important truth, it was against popery and not against patronage he meant it to bear. It is quite as good, however, for the one pur- pose as for the other — and though it clashed rather inconveniently, as will shortly appear, with Dr. Muir's own speech in the subsequent debate, it furnished a very solid argument in support of the motion that was adopted by the house. On the first day of the assembly, distinct intimation of the coming contest was given. As if impatient to Dr. cook's announce the prompt and cordial readiness of himself, claim his i ^ purpose of and of those with whom he acted, to conduct the tothed,"f afi'airs of the church on the footing of entire submis- siveness to the decrees of the civil courts. Dr. Cook took the unusual course of calling the attention of the assembly, within an hour after it convened, to the result of the Auchterarder appeal, and of intimating his purpose to submit to the house a motion upon the 13 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. siibject; suggestliig, at the same time, a particular day of the following week for discussing it. The trumpet of the moderate leader, blown in such haste from one end of the lists, was answered on the instant Dr. Chalmers f^.^^^-^ ^|-^g otj^gr^ Dr. Ohalmcrs, wlio was known to have wi'iiimvea' p-irded his giant streno-th for this momentous conflict, mi)l.ion to o * ~ proiiose. j.QgQ ^g j)^.^ Cook sat dowu, and calmly observed that, " he would feel it to be his duty to submit some distinct proposition to the house, and that he would table his motion at the same time with that of the Rev. Doctor." The gage of battle being thus taken up, a third champion advanced into the lists, eager, apparently, to step in between the combatants, and to persuade them to shake hands. The representative of no intelligible principle upon the question himself. Dr. Muir seemed to think it possible that even antagonist principles might be reconciled ; that non- intrusion and absolute patronage, spiritual indepen- dence and erastianism, might, somehow or other, be made good friends. *' It was plain," said the ex- moderator, *'that propositions which might be conflict- till matter ^^"^S wcrc impending over the assembly. Yet surely litllna^^' there might be elicited, by a private friendly discussion fnend^y^ of the iDropositious contemplated, some ground on discussion." _•'-■'■. . " which a harmonious resolution could be obtained." This notion of arranging, in some quiet half-hour's private talk between the leaders, a difference which affected the whole theory of the church's constitution, and which had been publicly debated for years, was, of course, by common consent rejected. Its author clung to it notwithstanding, expressing his hope that *' the learned and reverend doctors would consider them- THE COLLISION. 19 selves free to amalgamate their motions into one, if cnAP.ix. they saw that this would be for the good of the church:" a very amiable imagination, doubtless, but one which betrayed a singular misapprehension both of the parties and the principles that were about to come into collision. It was but recently that Dr. Muir had ^iJ'ut^,"ce,'u'' begun to interest himself in the general business of tcTstHm"" the church. He had been accustomed, indeed, durino- business' _ _' O ofCliurch by far the greater part of his previous ministry, to *'"'*'''^- absent himself entirely from church courts, and to addict himself exclusively to his pulpit and parochial duties. Pursuing this course, he had justly earned for himself the reputation of a faithful and useful minister, but on the other hand he had, by this seclusion, totally unfitted himself for being an efficient counsellor upon great public questions like those which were now agitatino; the church. His evan- gelical sympathies were understood to have been of late drawinof him more and more towards the men of the party of Dr. Chalmers, — while at the same time, in matters of church policy, his leaning had always been towards the side of moderatism. On the present occasion he had taken his place, with mathematical precision, in the very centre of the cross bench, and from this position it was he onhe"roV attempted to step in after the manner above described, between the moderate and evangelical leaders, and to bring them to one! The circumstances now men- tioned seemed, at least at the time, both to explain and excuse a proceeding which otherwise, as coming from a person of Dr. Muir's standing and intelligence, it might have been somewhat difficult to understand. b2 The ist motions 2^ THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. To indicate still more strongly the importance which a^go-^- was so instly attached to the approaching debate, Drs. _,. jiotions J J ^^ _ . chaimerf'^ Oook and Chalmers laid their antagonist motions on labie"'two' the table of the assembly two days before it came on. days before . , , . ^ thedeixite. ^he fullcst Opportunity was thus given to every mem- ber of the house to consider their real import, and to determine to which of them he should lend his sup- port. The motion of Dr. Cook set out with a long preamble, in which were minutely detailed the origin and progress of the Auchterarder case, — first in the courts ecclesiastical, and afterwards in the courts of law. Thereafter it proceeded thus: — ''Under these circumstances, it is moved, 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 patrimonial rights, with which the church has often and expressly required that its judicatories should not intermeddle, as being matters incompetent to them, and not within their jurisdiction, it be an instruction by the general assembly to all presbyteries that they proceed henceforth in the settle- ment of parishes according to the practice which pre- vailed previously to the passing of that act; keeping specially in view the undoubted privilege of parishioners to state, at the moderation of the call, any relevant objections to the induction of presentees; upon which presbyteries, after hearing parties, shall decide, — it being in the power of these parties to appeal, if they see cause, to the superior church courts." It was on Burns^'of '■ Weducsday, the 22d of May, the discussion took place. ^ii\Yd'j,nto Before entering on it, a venerable member of the house, pmylr.'" the Rcv. Mr. Burns, of Kilsyth, was called on by the Tlie motion ot Dr. Cook The THE COLLISION. 21 moderator to invoke in their behalf the presence and chap.ix. blessing of ahiiighty God. This was about twelve o'clock noon, and the debate was concluded about two hours after midnight. Dr. Cook's argument in sup- port of his motion amounted substantially to this : — It has now been conclusively determined by the courts of law that the veto act affects civil rights : the stan- ^'' '^o"'^'« O ■' iU'glllUL'llt. dards and laws of the church forbid her courts to handle things which pertain to the civil jurisdiction; the assembly of 1834, in passing the veto act, is proved to have violated that prohibition, because the civil tribunals have declared this to be the fact; the veto act is therefore null and void; the church is bound to treat it as such, and to go back at once, and as matter of course, to the state of things which preceded its enact- ment. The fallacy which runs through this whole argument lies here. It assumes that the church is stepping out of its own ecclesiastical province, and ^onfu'""^ meddling with what belongs to the civil jurisdiction, ''"^'"""" ■ whenever it touches anything which draws, however indirectly, some civil consequence in its train. As has been already sufficiently shown, this is in other words to deny that there is such a thing as a province ecclesiastical, — a province proper and peculiar to the church. Dr. Cook forgot altogether to advert to the fact that the same church standards which prohibit the dardlTf T ' • ■> o 1 IT • 1 • •! the Church ecclesiastical courts irom meddlino- with matters civil, prohibit tiic O ' state from deny not less peremptorily to the civil courts all right wilStos and competency to meddle with matters ecclesiastical, peremptortiy If the courts ecclesiastical forget this distinction, the church coui-ts from civil court will, of course, protect itself by disallowing Sdling to the illegal acts of the church any civil result, and h mailers civil. 22 THE TEN YEA.RS' CONFLICT. cuAf.ix. by treating them as in this respect destitute of all force and effect. But, on the other hand, it belongs to the very essence of that distinction between the civil and ecclesiastical, which the standards of the church lay down, that there is a corresponding right, inherent in the courts of the church, — a right to guard what is ecclesiastical from the encroachments of the courts of law. As the civil courts are not bound to hold a church act to be ecclesiastical, merely because the church has chosen to call it so, — no more are the courts ecclesiastical bound to hold it to be a matter civil, merely because the courts of law have been pleased so to decide. Each class of courts must judge for itself, and act accordingly. It is curious to ob- Dr Cook's serve how strangely Dr. Cook misrepresents this very stating the sluiple aud harmless jDroposition. " The very idea of it," o^spu-Hu-^ 1^® says, '^ is a contradiction in itself. We not only have independ- ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ could uot liavc, sucli a power consistently with the purposes and intentions of the civil government. There cannot be two independent legislatures in the same country. It is impossible that society can exist if one legislature be not suj^reme. If we admit an impe- rium in imperio, we tear up the foundations not only of government, but we tear up the foundations on which the whole system of social union rests." This is surely an example of very great confusion of thought. Dr. Cook identifies the courts of law with the leo-is- lature; and because the church refuses to submit to the sentence of the one, he takes for granted that it is setting itself up in opposition to the other. But how does the case actually stand ? The argument of his opponents was this, — the legislature of the country has ence. civil and ec- clesiastical cniiits as co- ordinate. THE COLLISION. 23 delegated one kind of jurisdiction to the courts of civil chap.ix. law, and it has ratified another kind of jurisdiction as belonorino- to the courts of the church. The legislature The state re- O O o co-rnidcs the has not made the one class of courts subject to the otherj but has placed them on the footing of courts of co-ordi- nate jurisdiction, and has declared the decisions of each to be final in regard to all matters which fall within its own province. On the supposition that this was a correct statement of the fact, it is abundantly obvious that, in refusing to acknowledge the right of the civil court to control its proceedings in matters ecclesi- astical, the church, instead of rebelling against the legislature, was only giving effect to the legislature's design. If, when the time for making the appeal arrived, this view of the relative position of the civil and ecclesiastical courts should be disallowed by the legislature of the country. Dr. Cook's opponents never hesitated to avow, what their after conduct nobly exem- plified, that then their resistance would be at an end. All along, they distinctly declared that it did, and '"stTte'^d'ter- must, beloncT to the legislature to determine on what ^vise,alld' ' o o insist on a conditions it will confer upon a church the immunities niac/T"' of a civil establishment; and that if once its decision riumfthri'e should be given forth to the effect of sanctioninjr that J^e ","*l""° o O leit Imt to doctrine of the civil courts' supremacy, now heard of torenounce for the first time since the revolution settlement of iisiiment." 1690, there could be but one or other of two alterna- tives open to loyal subjects and men of honour, — either to submit to that civil supremacy in matters spiritual, or to leave the establishment altogether. Such being the real state of the question, it was unworthy of Dr. Cook to attempt to load his opponents 24 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. witli the ocUum of seeking to set up the old popish principle which subordinated the civil to the ecclesias- ^tofo°i^o,lld' tical power. It was impossible that Dr. Cook could the chMch be ignorant of the radical difference between a claim, with the ° 1 • 1 claim of i[]^Q i\^Q^i of popery, to subject the state to the church, — and a claim, like that of the church of Scotland, to be free from civil coercion in administering its own spiritual affairs. The former was the claim of tyranny, the latter is the claim of liberty of conscience. The one was the ally of despotism, the other is the only foundation for true and lasting freedom. Not only, however, did Dr. Cook raise this groundless and sense- less cry, — a cry which was afterwards greedily caught up, and confidently repeated, by many who knew nothing about it, — but he allowed himself to indulge in vilifying the church to which he belonged, by attempt- ing to show that this usurping spirit was no new feature of its history, but one which had appeared more than once before. As his one solitary proof of this offensive charge, he read an extract from the Book of the Universal Kirk, on the strength of which, own Church, he accused the assembly of 1591, of maintaining, '' that ecclesiastics should not be brought under the cognizance of civil tribunals," and of dragging before them "a judge of the court of session" for an act done by him, " in the exercise of his duty, sitting upon the bench administering justice." This, ob- ThePreshy. scrvcd tlic Presbyteriau Review in its commentary on terianRe- t\ i~i i } ' Sswerto -^^- ^ook s spccch, " is a pure fabrication, a gratuitous mentonthis calumuy. Utterly unsupported by the record on which Dr. Cook professes to found it, and expressly contra- dicted by the known facts of the case, as established THE COLLISION. 25 by the testimony of an opponent. Spottiswoode, not- chap. ix. withstanding all his strong prejndices, brings no charge against the church for their conduct in this matter : and from his narrative of the facts of the case (pp. .384, 385), it is quite evident that Dr. Cook's accusation is wholly unfounded. Dr. Cook, however, '^sto^°^Isa is not the fabricator of this calumny. He has bor- borrowJd rowed it from two most disreputable episcopalian pro- weiTand ductions ; viz., that infamous libel. Bishop Maxwell's Burden of Issachar, and that most virulent and men- dacious book, Heylin's History of the Presbyterians (p. 295). It is also deserving of remark, that Princi- pal Baillie, in his reply to Maxwell, describes at length the actual facts of this case, and proves that this slander of Maxwell's (the very same as Dr. Cook's), is utterly groundless, and that the assembly on that occasion did not attempt to interfere in any civil matter, and did not try to step beyond their pro- vince of judging in ecclesiastical affairs. Dr. Cook of course knows these facts: but we take the liberty of recommending to his attention the following sentence with which Baillie introduces his reply to this calumny as brought forward by Maxwell : " — "' At this place, p. 46, you bring us another story. The calumny whereupon you make tragic outcries of the assembly's ^^.jy insolent usurpations. It seems you thought that this your book should never have come from Oxford into the hands of any Scotchman who knew the custom of the judicatories of Scotland. I do marvel much at your impudence, that you should speak of the assem- bly's encroaching upon the lords of session with any 2g THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. civil cause which the law commits to any temporal judicatory." Sr?he ''If Baillie/' contimies the Review, ^'marvelled wiuchcoum much at the impudence of a bishop who had been publisli such Oxford''* excommunicated by the church, and declared an be'imvnafd iuccudiary by the state, in publishing at Oxford so pubiMiedTn p;roundless a calumny asfainst the church of Scotland, the General * . Assembly, j-^q^ would lic liavo doscribcd the conduct of the man who, himself a minister of that church, and one who had written its history, should have dared to repeat the very same calumny in the face of the general assembly/'"'-' It was entirely in keeping with those views which Dr. Cook had given forth, as to its being the church's duty in every case to accept the sentence of the courts of law, as decisive of what does, and what does not belong to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to say as he did. '" It appears to me, therefore, that the veto-act is not an act of the church : it is altogether a nullity : the'cinuxir the church was acting under error, — she did that which she supposed she was competent to do : but it is now found that she was not competent, and the act falls to be considered as no act of the church at all. This being the case, there is no occasion, in my esti- mation, to send down this act to be rej^ealed, to the different presbyteries. We had not the power to pass it : we cannot have the power to repeal it : it is an absurdity, and therefore, in my opinion, it falls to the ground altogether." Such was the state of utter * Presbyterian Review, Vol. XII., pp. 175, 176, Dr. Cook liolds the Veto-law to he no law of at all, be cause dis- allowed by the civil courts. THE COLLISION. 27 impotence and slavish subjection to the courts of law, chap. ix. to which Dr. Cook sought to reduce, by his motion, a church whose glory it had ever been to hold, as the cardinal principle of its constitution, that Christ was its only Head and King. Those who have studied that church's laws and history, will judge whether its true genius be found in the crouching and craven spirit which breathed in the speech and motion of Dr. Cook, '^tife ciim°h or in the unflinchinof resolution and noble sentiments breaoied'' . not iu Cook, which pervaded the speech and motion of Dr. cifaimers Chalmers. In the outset of his elaborate and magnificent address. Dr. Chalmers took occasion to state, that in 1833 and 1834 he had been himself in favour of goinir to parliament — " not for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of the state in favour of our own great consti- tutional princi^^le of non-intrusion — for that I hold to be beyond their province — neither for the purpose of ^Jf ™fthat" superadding the civil to the ecclesiastical sanction, in '^xhh^tto order to confer a rightful authority either on the veto- law or any other device by which to carry the principle of non-intrusion into effect — for that I hold to be equally beyond their province — but for the purpose of making sure that we did not forfeit that which it is altogether within the power and province of a govern- ment either to give or to withhold, the inestimable benefits of a national establishment.'' In alludino- to this fact, it was not so much the speaker's object to vindicate his own consistency in proposing, as he was about to propose, that they should do now what it had been his wish to do five years before; as rather, to meet a particular and very mischievous objection liave gone to Parlia- ment. 28 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT, Chap. IX. whlch, ill lilgli aiid influential quarters, was rife at that moment against the conduct of the church. The church was accused of the grossest recklessness in passing the veto-law. It was assumed that those who guided its counsels had neither inquired nor cared about the risk of bringing on a collision with the civil rights of patrons. Adverting to those who entertained such views, ''it may, perhaps," said Dr. Chalmers, "blunt the edge of their dislike to us, when made to understand, that at the very commencement of this Tiieyaidnot ecclcslastical law there were the most anxious solici- go to Parlia- Kbl. tude and inquiry in regard to the bearing which the laTofficers clvil law had upon it ; and if these were confined to of the State ^ . i t i assured i[^q cliambcr of consultation and did not come forth them it was "™^''''' into visible display, it was because met and satisfied by the high authority of his majesty's law officers in Scotland. If no reference was made to the govern- ment during the enactment of this law, it was because their own legal functionaries were upon its side, and any charge which the champions of loyalty may found upon this, lies at the door, not of the ecclesiastics, but of the civilians of the general assembly." Theindepeu- Thc independence resolution of the preceding year deuce reso- t j i i t t lutiouof iiad alreaav alienated many conservative statesmen 1838 had •^ •' sorae'ofthe ^^^^ iiicmbers of the Scottish aristocracy, from a stTesmeuT causc which Dr. Chalmers had deeply at heart, and of the pin • » -i Scottish — the cause ot church extension. A church not aristocracy. tied hand and foot by civil statutes, not subject in everything to the control of the courts of law, they looked upon as dangerous to the commonwealth. Their own notions of a church establishment being all formed upon the model of the church of England, THE COLLISION. 29 with tlie parliament for its legislature and the sovereign chap. ix. for its head ; they were equally surprised and alarmed ^se^4lvem- to hear of such pretensions to a self-governing power STbytie"" as were maintained by the church of Scotland. It looked upon •' by them as seemed to them to be only another manifestation of ^^°^^^ the dreaded spirit of radicalism and revolution. Nor was this impression at all weakened but rather strengthened by the fact, that the shield of that juris- diction, in all matters and causes ecclesiastical, which the church claimed as her own, she had been throwing as a protection over the spiritual rights and privileges of the people. For the sake of that great cause to which his whole soul was devoted, as well as for their own sake, he would fain have disabused these frown- ing grandees of their utterly mistaken prejudice. " Let me," he exclaimed, " give an assurance, which I do with the profoundest respect to the nobks and liio'h ffentlemen of Scotland, that never, never was Dr.chaimeis' ° ° . . appeal to there a greater misconception than to look on the ^'j^^^'f^- doings of our church, as they would on the fermenta- tions of some coming anarchy which is to go forth and aiaim. desolate the land. Truly they confound the things w^hich differ; they apprehend the same danger from giving way to the popular mind in this ecclesiastical question, as from giving way to the popular mind in a question of civil or political warfare; and in per- fect keeping with this, they look on the vindicators, or if you will on the champions of this cause, just as they would on the agitators or demagogues of the commonwealth in seasons of plebeian delusion, or of fierce and frenzied partizanship ; never was there an imagination wider of the truth. There is no affinity and bis attempt to remove their 30 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. whatever between the demand, the honest demand, of the common people for a pure gospel, and those demands which are lifted up in the loud accents of turbulence and menace for the extension of their Anantipa- riglits as citizcus. There is a total distinction and ciei-v-inan clissimilaritv between those two things. Even an as unlike a. J <-' William wu. anti -patronage clergyman — let alone a vetoist — is just uuiike*""' as unlike a chartist or a radical as William Wilber- William cobbett. fQj.(,g ig unlike to William Cobbett. Leaving these more general considerations by which Dr. Chalmers sought to conciliate, in the high places of the land, a favourable reception for that appeal which he designed to recommend that the assembly should make to the government and parliament, with a view to obtain a legislative sanction for the veto-law, Recommends — hc cauic ucxt to tlic questiou, — What is to be done meanwhile, and until that sanction is given? On this fundamental point his views were clear and strong. When the hazard of an adverse decision in the Auchterarder case had first been spoken of, his own impression, and he had spoken of it often and oj^enly to others, was, that in such an event he would be prepared to go back from the legislative to the judicial powers of the church, and to effect by the veto of the presbytery what could not be effected, so as to carry the benefits of the establishment along with it, by the veto of the congregation. Not, indeed, that he would ever for a moment have consented to do this on the footing contemplated in the motion of Dr. Cook. He would have done it '' in the event only of the veto-law being repealed, which law we never can be freed from till it is repealed ecclesiastically. But supposing it that lativ tioii sliould be sought for the-Veto- law. THE COLLISION. ^1 thus repealed; and supposiifg also that we had tried chap.tx. to obtain the civil sanction for the veto-law, or some- 'T'''''^''"'""'"- ' staiipcs in thing else in its place, and had failed;" it was then, nl''""^ and in that case alone he '^should have had no obiec- "mveTen'^ r 11 1 1 1 • T • 1 1 t • prepared to tion to tali back on the judicial and administrative ti,^ J;';;!!;.;™ power of presbyteries." E'u.'^''' Till the date of the Auchterarder decision in the house of lords, it had never occurred to Dr. Chalmers, and it could not have occurred to those who supported the motion of Dr. Cook, in the assemblies of 1833 and 1834, that presbyteries were not entitled to look at all the circumstanceswhich seemed to affect the ministerial usefulness of a presentee, and having respect to all these circumstances to determine absolutely whether they would settle him or no. Why then was Dr. Chalmers no longer disposed to betake himself to such a course as the one he had described ? " That powMof the , . , Cliurcli as ivas my ground, he said, ''speaking to that very ques- [Suwa tion, — and I have not shifted it. I have not changed kti!e power my ground, — the ground has been cut away from me, decision! ^ and there is not one inch left for my feet to stand terreted"' upon. Here we are, in virtue of this decision, and of lons'o'fthr the principles on which it rests, flung abroad upon a """ °^^' viewless gulph, with no support and no resting-place save a despotic patronage on the one side, or a lapse into voluntaryism on the other. There is positively nothing left for us between these two extremes in the present state of the law, as expounded by the two chancellors in the house of lords. And the precise objec-t of my motion is to save us from both of these extremes, — from a system of patronage on the one hand, that will secularize our church, and justly 32 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. alienate the affections of all our people, — from that ^bSXTe system of voluntaryism on the other, into which, if we ?h?surrir once plunge, there will plunge along with us the great iSahUsif. mass and majority of our population into the depths of an irreligion and a vice, from which, with but the means and forces of a voluntary church, we can never recall them." Dr. Chalmers had not then contemplated those methods which, when driven, four years afterwards, into separation from the state, his own great mind devised, of calling forth the resources of a voluntary church. But to whatever extent he may himself, by the divine blessing on his own wisdom and energy, have thus become instrumental in diminishing the very evils which he dreaded and foretold, enough, alas! will remain behind amply to justify the solemn The time wiu wamiug wliicli he gave. And the time will come Souy Tf when men will look back with equal indignation and regarded astouisliment, at the choice which statesmen made, — Dr. C.'s so- ' ' tog wS""' when, in the nineteenth century, the £era of progress uuderTtood. aud poUtical reform, they preferred the alternative of maintaining unaltered a barbarous and oppressive law of the middle ages, to the concession of a principle so just and reasonable as this, that a congregation should be allowed at least a negative voice in the choice of their minister ! By large extracts from the printed judicial speeches of Lords Cottenham and Brougham, Dr. Chalmers substantiated to the full that account of their decision which he had submitted to the house. He showed that, not the right of dissent alone, but the call, in every form of it, had been swept away. And further- THE COLLISION. 33 more, that while the congregation had been stripped chap ix. bare of every privileo-e they had hitherto been under- s'"="s ti'^t •'_■'• ° '' the people stood to enjoy, the presbytery had ftired no better, presbytery Exceptino; within the hmited rano-e of literature, life, stripped" ^ * . equally of and manners, they were held to have nothin> riJIt'Kve diction in matters spiritual, according to the law and oXatiin. constitution of the church of England, would not venture to do there, the courts of law were now pre- j)ared to do here, — notwithstanding that these courts of law had not one particle of jurisdiction in any matter spiritual whatever ! True, indeed, in England, ordination is usually separated altogether from induc- tion. They ordain first, — and when the patron issues his presentation, it is in flavour of one already in holy orders, — nothing but induction, therefore, remains, and induction the law and practice in England treat as a matter of civil right, to grant which the bishop One of Lord mav bo compellcd by legal force. Lord Brouo;ham, Brougham's ^ •' ^ . . O ' blunders, niislcd by his English precedents, took it as a matter of course, that the only thing which created the diffi- culty as to the civil courts' interference in Scotland, arose out of the fact that here ordination and induc- tion were usually combined. His lordship knew, however, that there were cases in which that com- bination did not exist. A patron may and does often present to a vacant parish a minister already ordained and in the enjoyment of a benefice. In this instance, said Lord Brougham, " the only question that can Takes the ^I'iso is witli rcspcct to inducting him into the parish wdaincd" of A, whereas formerly he was settled in the parish presented of Bi" aud haviucf i^rovidod himself with this case, to anotlicr ' O i ' charge. (( gifted cutircly of the difficulty with which it is sought to be mixed up as to the first benefice, — because the THE COLLISION. 35 first benefice is accompanied with ordination and the chap. ix. second benefice is accompanied with no ordination at all/' — and having further laid down the principle that " whatever law applies to the case of the first benefice, in respect of the j^i'esent controversy, must be equally applicable to the second benefice/' — he thinks he has here discovered an experimentum crucis that will carry him, without difficulty, to his conclusion. Assuming Takes for it to be an imagination too absurd for any one to mducuou''''' -.■,., , , , cannot be mdulge m, that a ]3resbytery could refuse induction in ^u^f^Va^e the case of a minister already ordained, he reasons ciude°that upon this assumption as a sufficient ground for holding cannot'be' ^ , . * refused in that they cannot refuse it in the case of a minister not '^"y'^''^^- ordained. '' Now," said Dr. Chalmers, after quoting the passage in which this notable argument of the ex- chancellor is contained, '* I would have the assembly specially to notice the total misunderstanding under which his lordship here labours in regard both to the '^''- chaimers ^ o sliows )iis law and the practice of our church judicatories. "" - -'' K^^fro? He reasons from the imagination that when induction thejawlnd , . . . , . the practice IS separate from ordmation, as ni the transportation "^^^^^ of ministers, the idea of a presbytery having the power to refuse such induction were an absurdity too violent to be entertained for a moment. And from this he reasons to the equal, if not greater, absurdity of a presbytery having power to refuse induction, when a minister for the first time has been presented to a parish. Now, it so happens that on every such ques- tion of a second induction, and wherewith the ordina- tion of the presentee is not at all concerned, he having been ah'eady ordained on admission to his first parish, c2 3G THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. Oil cvery siicli questioii of induction, and of induction ^hichLmd alone, the churcli courts do put forth the very power, fake"tr and actually describe the very steps, which, in the eye fourul'' of his lordship, it were quite monstrous to conceive as possible. They call on the first congregation to appear at their bar and cite their reasons, if they have any, why their minister should not be dissevered from them : and they call also on the opposite side to state their counter reasons, why the removal should take effect. The presbytery sits in judgment on these reasons : and if their finding be the superior fitness of the presentee for his present over his proposed charge, they can put their authoritative interdict on the removal — an interdict the power of which has never teryhasaT- becii disDuted that we know of; but, as a matter of ways done, ^ ^ _ cMrager* course, is acquiesced in by all parties, though to the thCirLord great disappointment, it may be, both of the patron Brougham rs t i i • considers to aiid preseiitee. ISo late as last year this very process beimpossi- i . . ^^^- was gone through, to the very great disappointment of the patron. His lordship has just carried us to the very place where the strength of our cause appears in characters of most irrefragable demonstration. Go to England, where ordination is given separately from induction, and we there see that no civil power, not even the king, who is the head of their church, would offer to control a bishop in the matter of ordination. Come back to Scotland, and look to the only cases where induction takes place separately from ordination, as in the transportation of ministers, and we there see the absolute, uncontrolled power of the presbytery, either to reject the presentation or to give effect to it. In England, ordination is a matter not to be touched THE COLLISION. ^>j by the civil power, but is left altogether with the power chap. ix. ecclesiastical. In Scotland, induction, when it stands aloof from ordination, is a matter never touched by the civil power, but is left altogether to the power ecclesiastical. But by this sweeping sentence on the case of Auchterarder, the power ecclesiastical is doubly overborne. Not only are we lorded over as to the matter of induction, — respecting which our church has all along, and up to this moment, stood superior to the church of England, — but we are further lorded over as to the matter of ordination, in which, if our prostrate and fallen church do acquiesce, we shall be degraded immeasurably beneath the sister establish- ment. And all this, too, as the conclusion of an i^^d •^ Brougham's argument not only different from, the truth, hut directly and diametrically opposite to the truth." R-eckless, however, as Lord Brougham's assump- tions and arguments might thus be shown to be, they had been made the basis of a decision which, in respect of all civil effects, must now be recognised as the law of the land; and with that decision before them, and still more with that decision read in the light of those principles on which it was professedly founded, the assembly must proceed to determine the question, — what was now to be done. Dr. Cook had agreed to append to his motion, the recognition of ^or ev«i''Dr. special fitness for the particular charge, as a legitimate ciai fitness" ■■■ J- a ■' o accoramo; to ground on which the presbytery might place its judg- oftheHm^e ment in rejecting or accepting the presentee; but special fitness was not within the definition given by the two chancellors of the term ''qualification," — it did not fall under any one of these three categories, literor- wliole argu- ment found- ed on a gross mistake. 38 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. turc , life, 01' manner s. In a word, there was no middle course left to the church. Absolute patronage, enforced at the expense of riding rough-shod over the entire field of the church's spiritual jurisdiction, must be acquiesced in at once, or a stand must now be made, once for all, against these intolerable aggressions. The only position that could be taken up, consistent with loyalty to the state on the one hand, and with true allegiance to the church's divine and glorious Head on the other, was that which, in the following motion. Dr. Chalmers proposed: — '"Dr.ailr°^ '^ The general assembly having heard the report of the procurator on the Auchterarder case, and con- sidered the judgment of the house of lords, affirming the decision of the court of session, and being satisfied that, by the said judgment, all questions of civil right, so far as the presbytery of Auchterarder is concerned, are substantially decided, do now, in conformity with the uniform practice of this church, 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 Thecbireh sccurcd by law to the church, instruct the said presby- bows to the ,rY» o ^ • i -i ' f -\ ii deeisim.in tcry to oltcr no farther resistance to the claims of Mr. 80 far as *^ Sivhf Young, or of the patron, to the emoluments of the are concern- j^g^-^gg^^g ^f Auchtcrardcr, and to refrain from claiming i\ie jus devolutum, or any other civil right or privilege connected with the said benefice. "And whereas the principle of non-intrusion is one coeval with the reformed kirk of Scotland, and forms an integral part of its constitution, embodied in its standards and declared in various acts of assembly. THE COLLISION. oq the general assembly resolved that this principle can- chap ix not be abandoned, and that no presentee shall be Eesoh^Tto forced upon any iiarish contrary to the will of the pnncSof^ *' non-iiitru- conofreoration. ^'"a- '' And whereas, by the decision above referred to, it appears that when this principle is carried into effect, in any parish, the legal provision for the sus- tentation of the ministry in that parish may be thereby suspended, the general assembly being deeply im- pressed with the unhappy consequences which must arise from any collision between the civil and ecclesi- astical 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 (church) constitution to prevent such unfortunate results, do therefore appoint a committee for the Appoints purpose of considering in what way the privileges of the national establishment, and the harmony between church and state, may remain unimpaired, with instructions to confer with the government of the country if they see cause." All that the state had given to the church in the parish of Auchterarder was the benefice, and the power, in certain circumstances, to exercise the patron's right of patronage. The late decision had ruled the point, that the act of assembly 1834 could not be enforced without the loss of these temporalities. The presbytery of Auchterarder was accordingly instructed, in the motion of Dr. Chalmers, to hold them as, for the present, forfeited by the church. It was lawful for the church to surrender the state's gifts, but not lawful to surrender any of her own fundamental committee to seek an adjustment of the differ- ence be- tween the civil and ec- clesiastical law. 40 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. laws, SO loiig as slie believed tliem to be in accordance It jasiawfui yf[i\i the will of Christ, and necessary for the spiritual ^urrenVer good of Hls pcoplc. The act of 1834 possessed these gifts, but' characters. The principle on which it rested formed not to give ^ Taws'"™*' part of her public profession as a church before her connection with the state began. She had carried it alono- with her into the state alliance, it had been always embodied in her standards, often proclaimed in her laws, frequently asserted in her administration, and never abandoned during the two centuries and a half that had elapsed since she received her civil establishment. She still held it to be both scriptural and expedient, — and a principle therefore which she could not renounce without doing violence to her own constitution and sinninof ao-ainst God. At the same The existing time tliis state of thino's, — this contrariety of the civil contrariety <^ •' aviTuw a^' ^^^ regarding the benefices, to the ecclesiastical law fi°cesllnd"^' regarding the spiritual cures of the church, must tend, tlie cliurch .„ . - law as to It contuiued, to break up the union of church and state the cure of i SnT'* altogether, and hence the recommendation with which away if Churc" State i to con united. serious disagreement, with power to confer with the government of the country upon the subject. As the first effort of that committee would naturally be to obtain from parliament a law in harmony with the act of assembly. Dr. Chalmers dedicated a considerable portion of his speech to the vindication of the principle on which that act proceeds. The extract is long in which this vindication is contained, but it is far too full of both wisdom and eloquence to make it burden- some to the reader. It meets, and with a force of Church and tlic uiotiou coucluded, that a committee should be State are . , to continue appouitcd to cousldcr the best mode of adjusting this THE COLLISION. 41 argument wliicli no opponent has ever ventured fairly chap. ix. to face, the only plausible-looking objection with which the non-intrusion principle has ever been assailed. *' Let me now conclude," said the distino-uished Ti.e conciu- ■' ~ siun ot Dr. speaker, '' with a few brief remarks on the principle ^^^^^^''' asserted in the preamble of the motion, that most express, and one of the most ancient of our statutory and constitutional principles; and, to this hour, the one in greatest demand, and the dearest of all others to the people of Scotland, — we mean the principle of non-intrusion. The object of the veto-law was to supply a definite test for the clear guidance and determination of church courts, and by which they might come at once to a deliverance on the question whether or not this principle is violated. But if we are not to have the direction of this law, then, though in the absence of its test, we are not to lose our hold of the principle, but judge as we can by any other ^^'^^^p^fj^'p^^ tests that remain to us, whether by the ancient to^teaban- measure of a call, — happily preserved to us as a relic of better days, spared and transmitted, in the midst of their other cruel sacrifices, by the reckless innovators of last century, — or failing the call, for had this of itself been an unfailing index, the veto- law would never have been heard of: but in defect of the call as not being a perfect criterion, then must pres- byteries look to the matter with their own eyes, and judge in their own consciences — and with a solemn feel- ing of their responsibility to the God of righteousness and truth — whether or not they hold the appointment of this man to be an intrusion or an offence to the chris- 42 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. tiaii feclliigs of the people; and whether or not, with this moral barrier in the way of his usefulness, it is for the christian good of their families that he should be inducted to the charge of their souls. I know what may be said against this ; and it equally applies to the veto and the call, or to any other method by which you proceed on the mere fact of the popular anti23athy, and that without requiring any statement, or at least any vindication from them, as to the reasons of it. I am fully prepared for all the wanton ridicule which has been cast on a popular antipathy, without reasons, or such reasons as can be stated before a bench of judges for them to judge upon. The Dean of Faculty, in his pleading before the lords *«rroZ^by of session, makes repeated and contemptuous allusions Faculty^ to tliis mvstic and incomprehensible something — too the dissent . rons^^Sr.' shadowy for expression, too etherial to be bodied forth in language, and on which we would reject the pre- sentee,— grounding our rejection on a veto, itself without grounds ; or at least such grounds as are capable of being set forth and made intelligible to the minds of other men. Now, if there be one thin2f 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 ^wi.dicates"' nature. Not in Christianity alone, but in a thousand other subjects of human thought, there may be anti- pathies and approvals resting on a most solid and legitimate foundation, — not properly, therefore, with- out reasons, but reasons deeply felt, yet incapable of being adequately communicated. And if there be one topic more than another on which this phenomenon tiuuicates that dissent. THE COLLISION. 43 of the human spirit should be most frequently realized, chap. ix. it is the topic of Christianity ; a religion, the manifes- ^nuZrofit' tation of whose truth is unto the conscience : and the n^we of , . - Clu'istianity. response or assentmg testnnony 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 fell reality, — able, therefore, to articulate their belief, yet not able to articulate the reasons of it. 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 vindi- cate 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 the last century, and at the bar of this house, — when the collective mind of a congregation, who both knew and loved the truth as it is in Jesus, has been con- temptuously set at nought : and the best, the holiest feelings of our Scottish patriarchs, by lordly oppressors sitting in state and judgment, were barbarously scorned, condemns In that aoe of violent settlements, these simple, tempt of the •^ ^ _ ■•■ conscien- these unlettered men of a rustic congregation could of°pfoui'con! say no more, yet said most truly of the intended minis- whu^hpre^- ter, than this, that he did not preach the gospel, and pj,'^^^^,'"? that in the doctrine he gave, there was no food for their souls. I cannot image a more painful spec- tacle, than such men as these, the worthies of the olden time, at once the pride and the preserving salt century. 44 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. of our Scottish commoiiwealtli, placed under the ™i?fthe treatment and rough handling of an able, jeering, during'tL ungodly advocate, — while coarse and contemptuous demtism""' clergymen, booted and spurred for riding committees,"""" were looking on and enjoying the scene : and a loud laugh from the seats of those assembled scorners, com23leted the triumph over the religious 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,! ^ policy which has dissevered our population from our church, and shed most withering influence over 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 ^fsembiy caro, JB profcsslug friends of order and loyalty, — have a care, lest by a departure from the line of resolute and unswerving principle, ye 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 hair-breadth deviation from the path of integrity and honour, ye cause the hearts of these Philistines to rejoice. " This discernment of the gosj^el, this just percej)- * In those days the general assemhly enforced the law of patronage both against the people and the refractory presbyteries, by means of travelling, commonly called riding committees, whose office it was to ordain the intended clergyman, which was not unfrequently done under the protection of a military force. t By Lord Brougham, in giving judgment on the Auchterarder case. His lordship prided himself on his blood relationship to the leader of Scottish moderatism, and naturally admired the policy which his own decision sought to restore. against re tiirniug to the policy of the Intnl. sioiiists. THE COLLISION. 45 tion of truth, on the part of a home-bred peasantry, chap. ix. 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, ^ofhilli'i*!;'!,- Akenside, who in his Pleasures of Imagination, bids AkeusiT." us ' Ask the swain who journeys homeward from a summer day's Long labour, why — forgetful of his toils And due repose, he loiters to behold The sunshine gleaming, as through amber clouds. O'er all the western sky. Full soon, I ween. His rude expression and untutor'd air, Beyond the power 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 love 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 defend the reasons of it. *' ' It has been frequently remarked,' says Dugald Stewart, ' that the justest and most efficient under- standings, are often possessed by men who are inca- pable of stating to others, or even to themselves, the grounds on which they proceed in forming their deci- sions.' 'An anecdote which I heard many years i>»g='W stew *' •' art's anec- ago, of a late very eminent judge (Lord Mansfield) has MansMcT"' often recurred to my memory, while reflecting on these vFmiicatio.i • „ . ,, , , ° . of the Veto. apparent inconsistencies ot intellectual character. A friend of his who possessed excellent natural talents, but who had been prevented by his professional duties ^Q THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. as a iicaval officer, from bestowing on tliem all the cultivation of wliicli tliey were susceptible, having been recently appointed to the government of Jamaica, happened to express some doubts of his competency to preside in the court of chancery ; Lord Mansfield assured him that he would find the difficulty not so great as he apprehended. ' Trust,' he said, ' to your own good sense in forming your opinions : but beware of attempting to state the grounds of your judgments. The judgment will probably be right, the argument will infallibly be wrong.' ' — Stewart's Elements, vol. ii. 8vo. pp. 103—106. " I would take," continued Dr. Chalmers, after giving this most pertinent quotation from the cele- Thecongre- bratcd mctaphysician, "the verdict of a congregation, gation com- ^ , - , . ^ . • -, pared to a i-Qst as I talic tlic vcrdict ol a lury, without reasons. jury, wliich J J J §ict without Their judgment is what I want, — not the grounds of reason's"" thclr judgmcnt. Give me the aggregate will; and tell me only that it is founded on the aggregate con- science 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 j^eople, not as sitting in judgment on the minor insignificancies of mode, and circumstance, and things of external observation, but as sitting in judg- ment 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 people, I for one would yield the profoundest rever- ence." The motion of Dr. Chalmers having been seconded in a vigorous speech by Mr. Bruce, of Kennett, as THE COLLISION. 47 that of Dr. Cook had, without any speech, been chap. ix. seconded by Mr. Smythe, of Methven, Dr. Miiir i:»resented himself to the notice of the assembly. When these motions were tabled two days before. Dr. Muir Dr Muir not •' ' satisfied had intimated that neither of them met his views, and of the tw" hinted that he would probably propose something dif- ""'^""'' ferent from both. The addition Dr. Cook had since agreed to make to his motion, by introducing special fitness for the particular congregation, as one of the grounds on which the presbytery must rest its judg- ment in rejecting or admitting a presentee, — had, to some extent, conciliated Dr. Muir: thouoh he was ''still desirous of goinc^ further."-' His own plan, nis own which he proceeded forthwith to explain, would have involved a complete departure from the course which had been followed by the church in the settlement of ministers from time immemorial. The first step of that process had always been to send the presentee to preach to the congregation; for until he had done so, and obtained their call, it was the assumption of the church that they had no warrant to proceed further in the matter. Dr. Muir proposed, instead of this, ^[Sfe*° " that immediately on a presentation being received {."eienfee^^ and sustained, the presbytery enter on the trials of the thereafter to ' A J J appoint hini presentee, — trials the object of which shall be to ascer- tain his still having those qualifications, theological, tZ' moral, and literary, which at the first sanctioned the granting to him a licence to preach the gospel." * The addition made to his motion by Dr. Cook was this, — " that all ministers or entrants presented to kirks be tried before their admission, if they be qualified for the places to which they are presented, besides the ordinary trials of expectants before their entrance to the ministiy. " to i)reach liefore tlie 48 THE TEN YEAKS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. Haviiig passed safely through the first ordeal, they were to record the fact in their minutes, — and then to sub- mit him in some way or other, which Dr. Muir did not attempt to explain, to a second ordeal, by which his suitableness for the particular congregation should be tested. Under this second ordeal, the " mind of " T]ie miml of tote'uken *^^^ people" was to be one of the '' circumstances and imtdiaTot' considerations for ascertaining his suitableness," which e.Kplain how, i i • f, . . . effect''''"'* ought to become the subject " or investigation and judgment to presbyteries" in accepting or rejecting the presentee. It would not have been easy to con- trive a scheme fitted to run more directly than this of Dr. Muir in the teeth of those views of the law which had been laid down in the house of lords in deciding the Auchterarder case. Let the presentee only have the presbytery's attestation that all was right with him in regard to '' qualifications theological, moral, and literary," and anything beyond this would prove but a cobweb in the way of hindering his ordination and induction. The j^resbytery, by this process, would merely have furnished him with the staff to break their own heads, in the event of their presuming to throw their second ordeal across his path. The Jirst had given him, by an express and recorded judgment of the presbytery, all which Lords Cottenham and Brougham held to be necessary for the completion of his title both to orders and admission. The attempt to interj^ose a second would be as great an illegality as ^scheme'as tlic act of 1834, — aud one still more offensive to the riancewith civil law, as having been framed at the very moment skfn as^the whcn tlic judgmcnt of the civil courts forbidding it, had Veto-law . - , itself just been pronounced. THE COLLISION. ^q There were, however, many other objections to the cmap. ix. scheme of Dr. Muir: and these were stated and urged Dr.Muiran- o swered by with singular felicity and force, by one who was des- s^candiis^". tined from that day forward to exert perhaps a greater influence than any other single individual in the church, upon the conduct and issues of this eventful contro- versy. The reputation of Mr. (now Dr.) Candlish as a preacher was already well known. His extra- ordinary talents in debate, and his rare capacity for business, not hitherto having found any ade- quate occasion to call them forth, were as yet undiscovered by the public, — probably undiscovered His great even by himself. They seemed, however, to have InthlVa"?. needed no process of training to bring them to matu- Ssun"' rity. The very first effort found him abreast of the '^"o^">- most practised and powerful orators, and as much at home in the management of affairs as those who had made this the study of their life. There was a glorious battle to fight, and a great work to do, on the arena of the church of Scotland, — and in him, as well as in others evidently raised up for the emergency, the Lord had His fitting instruments prepared. Dr. Muir had thrown his motion into the form of a series of resolutions. ''First of all," said Mr. Candlish, after a brief exordium, " I find expressions ^camJiisli!^'^' introduced into these resolutions which, unless care- fully explained and strictly guarded, would go . far to lay the authority of the church prostrate at the feet of the ciAril power, not only in questions relating to the admission of ministers, but in other questions also, affecting the most sacred spiritual functions which the church can be called to exercise." In his second Chap. IX. Points out the errors, Ijotli in fact and prinri. 5Q THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. resolution Dr. Muir had laid it down, ^'tliat in passing this act (that of 1834) of her own will, and carrying it into effect, the church was influenced by the belief IdlnDf "" that this act, being not only in its nature, but also in fzAr' its consequences, strictly and purely spiritual, there was no necessity to obtain previously the concurrence of the legislature to it." As Dr. Candlish justly remarked, this statement was really not true. In passing the act of 1834, the assembly knew well enough, and could not but know, that '* in its conse- quences'' it was not " strictly and purely spiritual." They knew that if the law took effect in the ordinary way, one of its consequences must be to exclude the presentee from the benefice. Why, indeed, did the church follow Mr. Young and Lord Kinnoull into the civil court at all but just because ''consequences" were connected with the act 1834 that were not spiritual but civil, and on which, accordingly, the civil court alone was competent to adjudicate ? But, furthermore, this statement of the resolution, so incorrect in point of fact, was as unsound in point of principle. If it had any meaning at all it could be only this, that it was ultra vires of the church to pass any act, however purely and strictly spiritual in its own nature, if only it could be shown to carry, no matter how indirectly and remotely, some civil conse- quences in its train. It was to this Mr. Candlish alluded, as a principle that would place the church, even in her most spiritual functions, under the entire and absolute control of the courts of law. In a word, it was precisely Dr. Cook's erastian principle some- what less broadly announced; and their essential THE COLLISION. 51 identity was sufficiently brought out at tlie division, chap. ix. when at the final vote. Dr. Cook's motion had the support of Dr. Muir. The point, however, in Dr. Muir's resolutions which most needed animadversion The point m Br. Muir's was of a different kind. There was a great deal in '.vwchmost them about " the judicial character and privileges of madversion." the ecclesiastical courts," but nothing whatever about the j^rivileges of congregations. The only kind of intrusion to which Dr. Muir seemed to be opposed was intrusion against, not the will of the people, but the will of the presbytery. " I have looked/' said Mr. Candlish, " and I do not find, from the beginning to the end of his resolutions, one single word recognizing the privileges of the christian people. The reverend doctor has pleaded for the power of the church, — in its courts, composed of its rulers and office-bearers, but without securing and carrying out along with that power the rights of the christian people. And this, to my mind, is substantial popery. It is a position The^resoiu which must go far to establish a system of spiritual rogSTf despotism. In truth, it is only when the rio;hts of the courtsXt , . 1 /. /-jg THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. best aiid worthiest of our families from her taber- nacle."-' ^tion ofDr". It was tlio voicc of a prophet that uttered this solemn imi™en wamino'! and the sequel will show, that however much literally O' i- fulfilled. -^ ^g^g despised by the Dean, and by those who suffered themselves to be guided by his counsels, the prediction was strictly and literally true. It will be well if another warning, pronounced upon the same occasion, have not an equally exact fulfilment. If it fail, — and God grant that it may fail — it will be due to other causes than to the success of the Dean's efforts to hinder the recognition of the church of Scotland's claims. He, and the high legal and political authori- ties to whom he addressed his appeal, seemed to care Tiie Dean and for nothiuor and to cousidcr nothina: but the upholdinaf, his friends c3 O i O ' carrforno- in all its offensivcness of an obnoxious statute, — a uphfidkga statute brought in at the first by an act of the basest law that was , i • i • • t ad^gjaceto trcachcry, and now interpreted with a rigidity and a sternness unknown before. In comparison with this, the sacrifice that must be made of the moral and spiritual interests of the people, in deference to an act whose history was equally a disgrace to the state and a reproach to the church, seems to have been treated by these men as a matter of very inferior concern. And it was in reference to these men, and to the fatal career they were pursuing, that near the close of his pamphlet. Dr. Chalmers broke out in this overwhelm- ing burst of mingled indignation and grief, — " We have only to say to such and to all who have never * Remarks, &c., pp. 95 — 97. THE COLLISION. 79 once grappled with the realities of this great question, chap.ix. — whether he be a peer in his lordly hall, or a lawyer ^te,is the™'" in his writing chamber, — that if they will not step thTpee"rs forth into the livinsf world and thus engajxe with the ciiiefsti.ey o o O are prepar- ipsa corpora of the subject, then from that world there colutV.''^ is a reaction awaiting them, which,, deaf though they have hitherto been to a coming, will give them, and that full soon, the sense and the experience of a present danger. A people abandoned to irreligion will not remain inactive; but with the restraints of conscience and the fear of God unfelt, the restraints of human authority will soon be cast away. There is thus at the bottom of our social and political edifice a smouldering fire, which, if not met by the emollients of care, and kindness, and christian instruction, will break forth with the weio'ht of a volcano, and upheave into fra'T- thecuurebl ° ••■ , ^ influence ments the whole system and structure of society, pe'opifnnd Men have broken loose from all those ancient holds overthrowf which kept the community together: and there is now leaving so- . . . . . cietyto a waywardness in almost all spirits, which nothing, f^iifair'^ nothing but the education of principle can stem. The 7^\^w elements of a sweeping anarchy are busily at work; and at the bidding of a God of judgment is it ready to go forth on its errand of desolation. And should the revolutionary torrent once set in, the parties to whom we have now referred, immovable in the obstinacy of their own prejudices, will yet be driven like chaff before the wind, in the moral hurricane then abroad over the land, — the grandee unseated from his now towering pre-eminence; and the lawyer finding his munition of points and precedents to be frail as cobwebs in the breath of the popular indignation. It is now in moral and religious restraints. 80 THE TEN YEARS' CONELICT. Chap. IX. OUT powci' to clisami, aiid to pacify and to quell this labouring fermentation. The people are accessible, most hopefully accessible, through the medium of both their gratitude and their conscience. Examples of this are multiplying every day, and in sufficient number too, to warrant the conclusion, that if churches were enough multiplied, and parishes were enough sub- A different dlvidcd, aud miuistcrs enough active and conscientious, poucymigM — thc brcath of a new spirit would be infused into the yet avert the ■*• ''°™- hearts of men, and the fierce and fiery elements which are now at work would soften and give way before the omnipotence of christian charity." While Dr. Chalmers was thus nobly, though in vain, striving to find a way for his cause to the under- standings and consciences of men in power, by the eloquent and powerful pleadings of christian patriot- TheDeariwas isni, hls autaofouist, thc Dean, had meanwhile, by meanwhile ' o ^ ' 'J newcon-^ mcaus altogether different, been doing his best to Church!^ ^embroil in fresh conflicts the courts of the church. One of his earliest experiments in this field was the case of Lethendy. That parish, situated in the pres- bytery of Dunkeld, happened, in 1835, to have for its incumbent an infirm old man of the name of Butters. Tbecase^of Thc crowu, as patron of the parish, appointed, in the course of that year, a certain Mr. Clark to be the old minister's assistant and successor. This Mr, Clark was in due course, and as the poor creature's subsequent career abundantly proved, most heartily and justly vetoed by the congregation." Rejected in consequence by the presbytery, he appealed to the * Mr. CLark, subsequently to the disruption, was libelled, and deprived of his license for drunkenness ! THE COLLISION. g-j superior cliurch courts; and, in the assembly of 1836, chap. ix. the sentence of the presbytery was finally confirmed. Aquiescing apparently in the decision of the assembly, Mr. Clark was no more heard of till March, 1837, when he raised a civil action against the presbytery, ^brought™ probably under the same advice and influence which pSytery about that period had induced Mr. Young of Auchter- ^jf^^^L^'j'^''' arder to follow a similar course. The action was hrSion brought into court in November of the same year, and a few days thereafter Mr. Butters died. Mr. Clark had never received from the crown any regular deed of presentation. The writ issued by the crown in his favour in 1835 was that which is commonly called a sign-manual, by virtue of which, in the event of his being inducted as assistant and successor and surviving the existing incumbent, he was vested in a right to the temporalities of the benefice. Accord- ing to the law and invariable practice of the church, the induction of an assistant and successor was at the absolute discretion of the church. Apart altogether, therefore, from the barrier of the congregational veto, the simple fact that the presbytery had declined to pro- ceed with the settlement would have been held, down till 1838, to be conclusive against his title to either benefice or cure, and that whether the presbytery had assigned a reason for their refusal to proceed or no. Accordingly, when Mr. Butters died, the crown hold- Thecrown, in J ' ' J terv to Dro. reached the last step in the process, and were pre- paring to ajDpoint the ordination and induction, a messenger-at-arms entered the court and handed to the moderator what he called an interdict from the civil court against their going further in the case. Principal M'Farlan, the senior member of the pres- bytery, and one of the most zealous and influential members of the moderate party in the church, took the document in his hands, and having examined it, he rose and said, it was an interlocutor of Lord Core- house, in a bill of suspension and interdict at the instance of Mr. Young of Chryston. The principal said, " he would read the interlocutor, which was merely appointing answers to be lodged within four- f2 terv to pro- 34 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. teeendays; but had it been an interdict, as it was ^mSu's said to be, it could not prevent the presbytery from Fre'^tery' carrying their previous resolution into effect. No fai reference man had a greater respect for the judges of the land S^erdiclt than he had; but he could not forget that he was a case/ ^"^ minister of the church of Scotland, which acknow- ledofed no other head than the Lord Jesus Christ, and which disallowed all interference with their eccle- siastical proceedings. They could acknowledge no other laws than the laws of Jesus Christ." ""' It is true that at a later period of the controversy, when erastianism had become the order of the day with the courts of law and with men in power, the Principal altogether abandoned the ground on which, in the C adder case, he so firmly took his stand. Not, indeed, that he ever attempted either to explain or to ThePrinci- rcpudiatc the sentiments which in that case he had pal s after ••■ tTthafcase. avowcd. Hc siuiply let them slip. But this serves only the more clearly to show, what was amply con- firmed by the similar conduct of many other prominent members of the moderate party, that the yoke of civil supremacy in matters spiritual, to which they learned in the end so submissively to bow, was unheard of in the church of Scotland since the times of the Stewarts, and in the outset of the disruption controversy would have been considered monstrous and intolerable even by moderatism itself. The motion of the procurator, instructing the pres- bytery of Dunkeld to proceed with Mr. Kessen's settlement, was carried with only two dissenting voices. * Scottish Guardian, May, 1837. THE COLLISION. 85 The interdict which had been obtained by Mr. Clark chap. ix. was found, it would appear, by his legal adviser not to bear with sufficient precision upon the order thus issued by the commission of assembly. That order directed the presbytery to proceed with the settlement of Mr. Kessen upon the call he had received from the congregation. The interdict forbade their proceeding upon Mr. Kessen's deed of presentation. Anew or Mr. ciark ob- supplementary interdict was accordingly applied for interdictr'^ ^ ^ •' , , & ./ ri ^ directed and granted, to prohibit the presbytery from settling efecuuon^of him in respect of the call of the congregation, or on ofthrconr ^ ^ ^ ••11 mission of any other ground whatever, — running, m short, almost A^^embiy iu in the very words of the commission's sentence. The presbytery declined to make any appearance in the civil courts, for the purpose of having the interdict removed. To have gone into these courts, where no civil interest whatever was concerned, would have been to appear at least to acknowledge the compe- tency of that jurisdiction which in granting such an interdict they had assumed. The presbytery, however, wisely resolving to take the advice of their pi'oper ^j^^ ^^^^ ecclesiastical superiors in a matter so serious, and tothlcrZ. 1 • 1 I'll •111 1 •ii • missiou in hopnig that this delay might lead to the withdrawing ^^"^.?^f ^^^^^ of the interdict, referred the whole matter to the com- Duuiop's ' speecli. mission in August. The commission having met, and the procurator for the church having explained how matters stood, — Mr. Dunlop rose, amid profound silence, and said — " that a clear and direct collision had now taken place between the church and the civil court. The commission, in May last, had in this case resolved that induction into a pastoral charge was a purely spiritual act, in regard to which the church gg THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX aloHG had jurisdictioii, and had directed the presbytery of Dunkeld to proceed to the admission of Mr. Kessen to the pastoral charge of the parish of Lethendy, A case of di- rect collision between tlie civil and ec- courts!"'' refraining from any interference with the benefice. The court of session had, however, stept in, and pro- hibited the presbytery from carrying that sentence into effect." Mr. Dunlop went on to expound, with great clearness and force, the consequences of giving way to this usurpation of the courts of law, — shewing that if yielded to, it would involve nothing less than an obligation to take, not the word of God or the standards of the church for their rule in transacting matters spiritual, but the decisions of a civil tribunal. He illustrated his argument by a reference to the law Mr. Dunlop of marriaofe. " Marriage was undoubtedly a civil illustrates & O ... tio'n^uov^''' contract, and came under the jurisdiction of the civil bytil^Curts court, as to the civil rights and interests thence of law, by a . . , . . reference to ansinof! but it was also a reliofious as well as a civil tiie law of O ' c5 marriage. (.Q^^^i^act,, and tlic coufessioii of faith contains certain laws shewing the degrees within which marriages between relations are sinful; and according to it, no one may marry the sister of his deceased wife. Now it was well known that many lawyers had great doubts as to whether this was illegal, and probably if a case of this kind were to be brought before the civil court, the marriage would be declared perfectly legal, — but would the church in that case yield their views of the sinfulness of the union, in submission to the civil court ? Were they to take the interpretation of the court of session as the law of God?" Mr. Dunlop took for granted that the church was not prepared to subscribe to the doctrine of the infidel Hobbes, and to THE COLLISION. 87 resolve all morality into the law of tlie land. ** He chap.ix. was aware of the risk to which the presbytery n^ight '^^'^^. ^^f^;;^!^^^ be exposed by obeying their ecclesiastical superiors, aiihaz^dL should Mr. Clark dare to apply to the court of session to imprison them for so doing, but they had a duty to the church to perform, and he felt assured that, while the members of commission would themselves willingly submit to the same risk, the j^resbytery of Dunkeld Avould equally readily perform their duty, at whatever hazard; although, in truth, they incurred as great risk by disobeying the church courts, thereby exposing themselves to deposition, as in obeying the civil courts in a matter entirely beyond their province. It was, however, the duty of the commission to take upon '^^|o„^°^^J5']'' themselves any responsibility which it was competent Jonsil.mty" for them to do: and although they could not appoint Presbytery. a commission to execute the sentence, they could give the presbytery the full sanction of their authority." Mr. Dunlop accordingly moved that the presbytery be appointed *'to meet at Dunkeld, on Tuesday the 21st of this current month of August, and take imme- diate steps for the ordination of the said Mr. Andrew Kessen," and to ''proceed therewith without delay." Mr.Duniop's The Rev. Hamilton Buchanan, of Strathblane, and joming'uie ■' •' Presbytery the Rev. Dr. Brunton, both of them members of the sup^po'ted' moderate party, spoke and voted in support of Mr. h. Buciian- Dunlop's motion, — Dr. Brunton taking occasion to ^^^'^^"^7 express himself in the following terms: — ''He regretted nfodcmte" that the necessity of deciding in this case had been thrust upon them; but still he felt that the necessity existed. They had instructed the presbytery to do a purely spiritual act — to ordain Mr. Kessen as minister gg THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. of tlie parish, and for this they were interdicted. It might happen that the temporalities of the parish would not go to the minister in this case, but he thought that was exceedingly unlikely. He for one would never consent to delay, — nor would he consent to go into a civil court to plead this cause. He knew his own province, and on that province he would stand Mr. Duniop's or fall." Mr. Dunlop's motion was carried, upon a motion car- .... i n c • i i • Tied by fifty- division, Dv litty-two to SIX, — there not beinof one twotosbc,— _ ... . . . . . ^nfsfi?"^^ single minister in the minority, — a fact this which mtiwruy""' vci'y Strikingly confirms the statement already made — that the right of control now claimed by the courts of law over the courts of the church, was a '' new thing under the sun," and a thing regarded in the earlier stages of the controversy with all but universal astonishment and alarm. The commission further directed that, unless Mr. Clark should withdraw his civil process, the presbytery should serve him with a libel, and proceed against him for the ecclesiastical offence of attempting to bring the internal government and discipline of the church under the control of the courts of law. Remaining Tlic fui'thcr liistoi'y of tliis casc is both curious and tilis°casef instructive. On the 21st of August, the presbytery of curious and -r-.,,, 'iii •• A instnictive. Dunkcld iiict, as appointed by the commission. An agent appeared on the part of Mr. Clark, and craved permission to read an opinion of the Dean of Faculty. The permission was granted, and the Dean's thunder was straightway heard rollinor over the heads of the The Dean's i mi i t i reld to the" P^Gsbytery. The document assured them " the expec- by M?.*"'^ tation that the supreme civil court will allow its inter- agcnt.* diet to be set at defiance, is the most vain and idle THE COLLISION. gQ with which parties can delude themselves :" """ "' "' chap.ix. and that " the members of presbytery will most inM- ^,^'^,^f;/,e libly be committed to prison, and most justly, for an SyTeryf oiience oi a most fjrave nature, and the more aggra- resist they O ' OO ,vill be com. vated in proportion to the status of the parties by pri^"^.*" whom it is committed." The Dean, in this famous manifesto, was further pleased to inform them that ''the commission of assembly," which from time immemorial had been accustomed to transact a large part of the business of the church, and the validity of whose acts was never challenged before nor since, " was a body not recognized as possessing any power of government, or discipline, or jurisdiction over pres- byteries, by any statute or law of the land." Further still, he would have them to know, that it was as a ''British subject," and not simply as a member of the "m^.^om'" church of Christ, that Mr. Clark held his license as a preacher: he was " legally entitled to his license." And by way of crowning the climax of this bold and barefaced erastianism, the Dean's " opinion " laid it down, that " every man in this country who adheres to its doctrines, is entitled to be a member of the established church." In other words, a man's right to the offices and ordinances of the church, stood on the same footing with his right to any civil privilege or emolument: and might be enforced by the common penalties of law ! Such were the Dean's notions of a church, — of that church, multitudes of whose ministers and members had, in other days, been contented to suffer imprisonment, exile, and death, rather than acknowledge, by word or deed, that the civil power had any jurisdiction over its spiritual affairs ! Nor held his li- cense as a " Britisli subject." 90 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cnAP. IX. was the spirit of those martyrs for the crown rights of Christ, as the sole Head and King of the church, extinct in the nineteenth century : and of this fact the "^Sedir of Christ, as the sole Head and King of the church, briug out tlie fact that the martyr .^ , _ . . (,■••. spirit was Dean was destined to be the occasion of brinafinaf forth not extinct ^ to to Church of ample and conclusive proof. It is often the lot of the persecutor to develope the brightest graces of the church. It is the concussion of his stroke that makes her hidden fires flash forth. Let not this praise be denied to the Dean. This was not the only instance in which Mr. Hope sought by such arts to shake the constancy of those who were maintaining the independent jurisdiction of the church. ^'I suppose," said he in his letter to the lord chancellor published the following year, " by this time the church j^erceive that the violation of another interdict is a matter which they had better not The comment embark in." " To me," observed Dr. Chalmers in ofDr. Chal- Sean's ^^^ I'^pty^ " tlicre is something most coarsely, and imprison-^ revoltingly untasteful in this bravado. It is like the act of an executioner making demonstration with his rope, in the eyes of his victim, before he fastens it on: or of the gaoler, in like manner, brandishing his keys in the face of those whom he is dragging to confine- ment. My only reply to this insulting bravado is, that should he dare to put it into execution, he will find that he has completely miscalculated the strength of principle which exists in the bosoms of Scottish churchmen."""' It has always been the blunder of a certain class of politicians, to leave out the element of princiijle altogether in estimating the forces they have * Remarks, p. 96. THE COLLISION. 9I to contend with in the prosecution of their selfish chap. ix- schemes : and how often has that forgotten element turned all their counsels to foolishness! There was enough of it found in the presbytery of Dunkeld to have warned any one, not blinded by prejudice and passion, of the folly of attempting to carry it over conscience by the mere terrors of brute force. Such The nean-s miscalculu- rude weapons as the Dean employed to deter that twi^- presbytery from the discharge of its duty, served only to throw it back on that source of strength to which Christ's servants betook themselves of old, when they too had been commanded to obey God rather than man. ''Now, Lord, behold their threat- enings, and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word." Disregarding everything but the imperative call of duty, the presbytery calmly proceeded to execute the sentence of the church. When the day for Mr, Kessen's ordination arrived, the Rev. Michael Stirling of Cargill, the senior member of the presbytery, in a speech full of moral dignity, addressed his brethren. Referring to the fulminations of the Dean contained in Firmness of n • ^ -\ IT r^^ i 5 the menaced the paper read at a former meetmg, by Mr. Clark s ^^'^'I'lff'^- agent, Mr. Stirling said, '' He had not an opportunity the rbv^m. of seeing the paper, and had only heard it cursorily caigm!° read; but the object of it seemed to be to impress upon the members of presbytery, that if, on the one hand, they dared to execute the orders of the commis- sion they would infallibly be subject to imprisonment, and other pains and penalties ; but if, on the other hand, they refused to obey their ecclesiastical superiors, and were afterwards deposed by the general assembly 92 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. for coiitumacy, the court of session would, notwith- standing, maintain them in the full enj oyment of their stipends and emoluments. He could not find words '^meltl^te^ too strong to express his indignation at such a mode tiireatlwith of proccdure ; he had not heard nor read of such an Mi"ier^" insult being offered to any lawfully constituted court since the worst days of the Charleses and the Jameses. It was, in fact, a deliberate attempt to concuss the presbytery by putting them in bodily fear, and by threats and intimidations to compel them to act against their consciences; but he knew there was a spirit in the presbytery of Dunkeld that would despise such menaces, and he trusted that, by God's help, they would do their duty whatsoever trouble or persecution may arise." Mr. Stirling reviewed the statutes ratify- ing the spiritual liberties of the church, and shewed that the court of session had no more right to interdict a church court in the exercise of its proper functions than the general assemby had to interdict the court of His answer to session. **But it is said," continued Mr. Stirling, the question, i • -i • n t p i pre^sb^tei^^'" " ^hcrc IS the necessity of thus strugglmg for the tTe^wsuit"^ spiritual independence of the church? cannot you thedvS "" have patience and wait a few years till the civil ques- tions be finally decided in the house of lords ; till you see who is to have the stipend, and then you will be better able to determine whom you should invest with the functions of the ministry." To this wretched argument, that would treat as a thing of nought the spiritual interests of the parish and care only for a question of money, the speaker made this noble reply, — We cannot wait, because of **the spiritual destitu- tion of the parish of Lethendy; it had been already courts. THE COLLISION. 93 nearly two years without a minister, tlie sacrament of chap. ix. the supper had not been dispensed for more than two years ; there was no pastoral superintendence, there was not even an elder of the church whom the sick and dying might send for to pray over them, and give them comfort and instruction in the name of the Lord." -X- -;j -;f '^- about the end which they (the commission) desired, he would vote for that milder way." Mr. Dunlop " was quite willing to concur in the conclusion of Dr. Lee's speech, — that if there were a milder way they were 122 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. bound to adopt it, — he would rejoice to adopt it. '^wouw'befor ^^^ *^^® poiiit was tliis, — was there a milder way of w^'Sif accomplishing that object which all admitted must foumi. be accomplished? There was, indeed, a milder way; but whether it could be adopted depended not on the commission but on the seven ministers themselves. Let them only signify their willhigness to abstain from their threatened intrusion of Mr. Edwards, and the commission would be mildness itself. Refusing to do this, they cannot complain of the severity of a The seven senteucc thc sole object of which is to render unneces- niinisters , , , , ^ ™g|jtmake sary the inflicting of a sentence greatly more severe. ciwsi^**'^^ If not suspended, they would evidently consummate their present rebellious course by ordaining Mr, Edwards, and then the assembly could have no choice left but to depose them from the ministry altogether." Dr. Chalmers supported the motion of Mr. Candlish. " The presbytery had committed an open breach on that authority, under which all statutory enactments Speech of Dr ^^^^ all judicial seuteiices were carried into execution. supports^he It was disobedience, not against a rule, but against i\ir. caiid- the power which originated and enforced all rules and ordinances. If it were allowed there would be an end to all law and all government. He must confess, that when he heard of the proceedings of the presbytery, his feeling was, that there was nothing for it, but that this act of highest offence should be followed by an act of the highest infliction, but he was glad this expedient had been devised in the meantime. For his own part, far from seeking reasons of punishment, he would much rather look for reasons of palliation, — and the only palliation he could discover was, that they had THE COLLISION. |23 been acted on, he was afraid, if not by the power of chap. ix. an excited imagination, at least by the power of a strong delusion, at the influence of others. If he could discover this, if he could discover that their first move- ments had been, not the result of their own simple ^Sels an"' hardihood, but the result of their own simplicity, "utTsTght stirring up operated on by the machinations of others, he would yj.'^timr"' be inclined to deal with them all the more leniently. He glanced at nobody, but he was afraid these ministers were under the influence of others, who were beyond their jurisdiction. If that were true, his indignation was altoofether removed from them and lighted on the heads of those disturbers of the peace of their Israel, the disturbers of the peace of the commonwealth. He believed that the feelings and fears of the members of the church had been operated on with a view to pre- cipitate measures at the very time that the legislature of the church was approaching to the legislature of the state, for the purpose of adjusting the whole question. This was the time chosen by the idolators of the law as it is, — of that law which was now found to conflict with the original principles of the church. This was the time chosen by certain parties to throw embarrass- ments in the way of the church. He believed that An attempt an attempt was making to shake the nerves of the ",',",'^e'tiie° clergy of the church, by threatenings of confiscations [he'S'! and imprisonment, to induce them to quail before the judicatories of the civil power in the city of Edinburgh, when higher than this they ought to look — to the higher and presiding power in London, which was able, by its legislative power, to harmonize all the conflicting elements — or higher still, they ought to look to the 1^24 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT cuAP.ix. paternal guidance of the church, holding directly of her Head in heaven, and to whose ordinances and laws, in matters of government and of discipline, they had sworn obedience. He regretted, in common with all good men, the unforeseen conflict which had arisen between what was now found to be the law of the state and the constitutional principles of the church. The two laws had crossed or interfered with each other. And the effect of this was the severance of the civil benefice from the ecclesiastical cure. The general '^latourfnfto assembly had betaken itself to the constitutional tiemeut.*''" procoss wliicli was taken in every other case of co-ordinate jurisdiction. They had taken the question from the judicial to the legislative tribunal, and they had suspended their proceedings till the meeting of next assembly, by which time they might expect, perhaps, civil legislation on the one hand; certainly they might be assured of ecclesiastical legislation on the other, being brought to bear on this question. Under these circumstances, he did expect that they would have been followed in their forbearance by the other side, that there would have been a cessation of ^done to""" hostilities. Everything is doing to thwart us — every- Aslemwyf tliiuor is doiuoj to amiov us — everythinpj is doini ^ o . acquainted with the deliverance!" Innocent men — ■ zealous non-intrusionists — loyal and dutiful sons of the church — why should they be punished ! The argument was irresistible, and the conclusion followed of course, — which he accordingly embodied in a coun- ter-motion— that the commission " disapprove of the conduct of the moderator in not calling the pro re nata meeting of presbytery, in terms of the requisition: approve of the conduct of the presbytery, and refer the report given in by the presbytery to the next general Dr.Bryce's assemblv." Tlils motiou found a seconder in the Rev. motion ap- .' rrSuct Mr. Listen, of Redgorton. The Rev. Dr. Muir, ministersse- of Ediuburoli, could uot support any motion that conded by ° ' i m Sf R«igo°"' approved of the conduct of the presbytery : " There *""" were peculiar circumstances connected with the early connection of the presentee with the people of Mar- noch, as the proof of his unsuitableness for them, which were enough to give the presbytery a serious admoni- tion as to how they should have conducted themselves in viewing and weighing objections and reasons of dis- sent when offered to them. And, therefore, on that Dr.Muir's cTrouud, aud on the o-round of other matters relating speech. & » » ... , to their procedure in recent meetings of their court, he could not join in the motion to approve of their conduct." THE COLIJSION. 127 ble him to enter his dissent. He concurred in a great deal of tlie first motion, — but chai-. ix. could not go alono^ witli the conclusion. He tliouo'lit tlie end contemplated might be gained by appointing a committee to confer with the presbytery. Dr. Lee, being urged by Mr. Walter Cook to put the views he had expressed into the form of a motion, consented : and his motion was to this effect — that the presbytery be cited to appear before the commission in March, and to bring up with them full extracts of all their proceedings in the Marnoch case; and that, meanwhile, they be prohibited from taking any steps to fill up the vacant charge: with certification if they do so, they should incur the highest censures of the church. Dr. Dr. Lee Lee framed his motion, however, simply for the pur- motion, but ' ' i. J i onljr to ena- pose of having it in his power to record his dissent. The motions on which the commission actually voted were those of Mr. Candlish, Dr. Bryce, and Dr. Muir. Dr. Bryce's motion being put as the amendment to Dr. Muir's, was lost by 9 to 13. The great body of the members declined to vote for either. On the second vote. Dr. Muir's motion was put against that of Mr. Candlish, and was lost by 14 to 121. Such was the overwhelming majority by which the resolu- ^candii°h^^'* tion to maintain the authority of the church over her i?i to \l own office-bearers was adopted. Before the division took place. Dr. Bryce withdrew from his motion the clause which contained an approval of the presbytery's conduct. Their proceedings may thus be said to have been unanimously condemned. On the other hand, Mr. Candlish, gladly adopting a suggestion which had been thrown out during the discussion, had added to his motion that a committee should be appointed to 128 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.ls. confer witli tlie presbytery and Mr. Edwards. Of this conference committee the Rev. Dr. Gordon was made convener. On the following day, a fresh indication was given of the lengths to which the seven ministers were pre- A notarial pared to ffo. A notarial protest was, in their name, protest serv- i o ■■- ofsuspSd ^^^^ ^y their agent, served upon the moderator, holding Shig'aii all who had concurred in the sentence pronounced againsttbem asfainst tlicm by the commission liable to them in all liable in da- o •/ mages. (t ^ost, skaitli, dauiagc, and expense,'* that they might incur in consequence. This was, of course, an act of flagrant contempt of the authority of the commission, — and would of itself have justified the highest eccle- siastical censure. Unwilling, however, to go a step further than absolute necessity required — still desirous to leave a door open for reconciliation — and indulging, moreover, the charitable hope that the zeal of their legal adviser, rather than their own deliberate purpose, might have dictated this outrageous proceeding, — the The protest, commlssiou coutcntod itself with referring the protest, ma'tt^s°in" aloug wltli tlic wliolc otlicr mattcrs in the case, to the tlie case, re- i i i • • ^ iv ferredto next assemblv, and ofrantmof warrant to cite the otien- Tip\t. Assem- «' ' O <-3 ders to appear at the bar of that supreme court to answer for their conduct. It soon appeared, however, that all this considera- tion and leniency were completely thrown away. The suspended seven had taken the field as rebels against the authority of the church — an authority which, by their ordination vows, they had solemnly bound them- selves to obey — and instead of lowering their insurrec- tionary banner when struck by the sentence of the commission, they hastened to display it with an air of next Asseni' bly. THE COLLISION. 129 greater defiance tban ever. Four days after tlie sen- chap.ix. tence was j^i'onounced, tliey presumed, in utter con- "^ed^.^tCTs tempt of it, to meet in a pretended presbytery, and thUtZ'^ to come to a formal resolution to disown tlie commis- meeun" pretended sion's authority, and to seek against their own eccle- I'^'^^^ytery. siastical superiors the interposition of the civil power. The terms of their application to the court of session sufficiently shewed what was to be expected at their hands, or at least at the hands of those who were guiding their conduct in this affair. They called on the court '' to suspend the resolutions, sentence, and proceedings" of the commission, and " to prohibit and discharge" the minority of the presbytery from carrying the instructions of the commission into effect. Not only did they ask that none should be allowed to They apply ♦' •' to the civil molest, invade, or interrupt themselves, the complain- asideuie''* ers, in exercising their usual functions, but they went tTe churdf. so far as to solicit a direct interference with the func- tions both of the minority of the presbytery and of the commission itself. They prayed the court " to inter- dict, prohibit, and discharge" the minority, to whom the commission had granted the necessary powers, ''from holding any meeting of the presbytery of Strathbogie, for the purpose of suj^plying ministerial services, or otherwise exercising any of the functions They ask the n 1 I • . , . . . , civil court to 01 the complainers m their respective parishes, or prohibit the Otherwise acting on the foresaid deliverance and sen- fi'eGoipli tence." Nay, more, after naming the individual pLrisiTJs. ministers, from various parts of the church, who had been appointed by the commission to co-operate with the presbytery in executing the commission's sentence, the court was entreated to interdict these and all II. I ■[OQ THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP. IX. others, not only from entering into the cliurches of the complainers, but from ''intruding into their parishes" to intimate the sentence of the commission, or in any manner of way to perform the duty which the commission had appointed these ministers to dis- Theextreme charnfc. Let the reader mark the extent of this jiuiure or o *^'"^""'"'^- demand. It was not merely that the civil court should continue the suspended ministers in the pos- session of the temporal emoluments of their office, but in their office itself. It was not merely that the civil court should authorize them to disregard the ecclesiastical sentence, but it was that the civil court should set the ecclesiastical sentence aside by a decree of its own. It was not merely that the Prays the sovcu mcu, from wliom the church had withdrawn Court of Ses- . .. . t i • i i ^ ^ sioutogive all authority to minister in sacred things, should be Candto empowered by a civil court to minister in those things tua? powers sacrcd iiotwitlistaiiding; but it was, that by the same Church. civil tribunal, authority should be denied to the church herself to perform any sacred function in a certain number of her own parishes. In a word, the demand made upon the court was to interdict the national church from preaching the gospel and dis- pensing the sacraments in any part of a whole district of couutry, — not only from doing these things in the parish churches, but even in private houses or in the ^t^suetlTL open fields ! The confession of faith, which these men piiesVo^niai had all of them subscribed, expressly declares, that by trine of uie tlic cxpross oixUnation of Christ, the G^overnment of Confession J- ^ "-' tothi'p'ower the church has been placed in the hands ''of church ruiel^'. officers, distinct from the civil magistrate;" and that "the civil magistrate may not assume to himself the THE COLLISION. 131 of the Stratlibogie ministers called on the civil courts to exercise power of the keys." The petition of the suspended cmap.ix. ministers was obviously and undeniably in direct con- tradiction to these principles. It proceeded on the assumption that the sphere of church power was not distinct from that of the civil power; and that the civil magistrate, by his civil functionaries, the judges of the courts of law, luas competent to exercise the power of the keys. The petition accordingly, and that in direct '^'f^^p^"*''"' terms, called on those civil judges to put the power of the keys, the power, that is, of spiritual government, in force, by annulling the spiritual sentences of the |j|e{;°""°^ supreme ecclesiastical court, by issuing decrees for the regulation of spiritual affairs, by giving authority to some and withholding it from others, to exercise the functions of the christian ministry. The plenary jurisdiction of the pope himself could hardly reach farther than the court of session were asked to go by the seven ministers of Stratlibogie. Nor is it saying too much to affirm, that had such a demand been made upon the court of session, at any period from the Revolution downwards, until the doctrines, broached for the first time in the Auchterarder case, had gained a footing on the bench, it would have been cast back over the bar as an extravagance too monstrous to obtain a hearing. Nor was it all at once the court gave in to it even in 1839. In their decision they fell a great way short of the full range of the Strath- bogie petition. They went no farther, on that occasion, Vogie iLfer* than to interdict the minority of the presbytery, and all others, from using the church, church-yard, and school-house, in executing the sentence which the commission had pronounced. i2 ;L32 the ten YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. IX. To tliis Gxteiit tliG cliurcli had no hesitation in ^o4>"ed'be'i' deferring to this decree. It undoubtedly belonged to trmatter?'' the civil tribunals to determine to whom the property dviiTuris! of the church, church-yard and school-house, should diction. '' belong; and since they had thought fit to decide that the right of setting foot within any of these places was permitted to no ministers of the church excepting to those seven whom the church had declared disqua- lified for exercising the ministiy altogether, it was the clear duty of the church, however much wronged by that decision, to acquiesce in it at once. Accordingly, dead of winter though it was, the ministers appointed to execute the sentence of the commission betook The miiiisters themsclvcs to tlic markct-place, and to the open fields; sent by the i- ' I ' stmthbogie ai^d surrounded, in almost all the parishes, by crowds Ihe'fieids. of the people, they did their duty, — not only publishing the sentence of suspension, but preaching everywhere with great power and acceptance the glorious gospel of the grace of God. It was a great day for Strath- bogie: the word, at length, had free course, and ran, and was glorified. And thus it ever is, that He who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in workinaf maketh even the wrath of men to praise Him ! Feeling, perhaps, that as yet they had gained only a barren victory, the Strathbogie ministers, acting, no doubt, under the same legal advice which had hitherto directed their movements, returned, in the course of a few weeks, to the court of session once more. It was a small matter to have succeeded in shutting the evan- gelical and non-intrusion ministers out of the parish churches, unless they could exclude them from all access to the people; and unless, at the same time. Second inter- dict applied THE COLLISION. 233 they could obtain from their new masters, the civil chap. ix. judges, a formal warrant for continuing in the exercise of the ministry themselves. By the former judgment, the court had granted only a small per-centage of their demand, and now therefore they came back claiming the whole. The Lord Ordinary Murray, to ^t^f^'^M^'^c whom they first applied, continued the limited interdict '''"'"'y- already in force, but refused to go farther. Having carried their case, by a reclaiming note against his lordship's interlocutor, into the first division of the court, they obtained a decision in terms of their prayer! In moving this memorable sentence, not unworthy of the high-commission court of the Stewarts, Lord Gillies took occasion to say, " that it Tiie second •' interdict, appeared to him that the position which the non- ofiord'''' intrusion party of the church of Scotland had taken m^ing'^hat •• 1 1T111 n 1 '^''^ grant- up in opposition to the established law of the country, ^a. was the most arrogant that any established church had ever attempted." Perhaps it was, — and that, simply, because no other established church in the world had either so contended for or so secured, as the church of Scotland had done, the constitutional right to an independent jurisdiction in matters sj^iritual. His lordship, however, ought not to have spoken of the attitude of which he complained as being that of a party, but as being the attitude of the church. A reso- lution passed by 121 to 14 was surely the judgment of the body which, by so overwhelming a majority, had spoken its mind. His lordship " then read an extract from Bacon, showing that the temporal courts had the right of expounding the law in relation to the spiritual courts." It would have been more to his purpose had Speccli of Loi'd Fuller- 134 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. he been able to adduce in support of that opinion either the dicta or the decisions of the legal autho- rities of Scotland. " Certainly/' said Lord Fullerton, to^^^»^' taking a totally different view of the grave question before them, " the difficulty he had always felt in this case, and it was not yet obviated, was how their lord- ships could, by passing the interdict, review the decision of a court which, by the law of the land, had exclusive jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters within those limits which excluded the jurisdiction of the civil courts. For, disguise the matter as their lord- ships might, they could not come to a decision upon the vote of suspension without taking into consideration matters which were purely ecclesiastical and beyond the jurisdiction of a civil court. "' " "' What were their lordships called upon to do but determine, if not in express terms yet by necessary implication, that these reverend gentlemen were entitled to exercise the functions of the holy ministry, and were entitled to administer baptism and dispense the holy com- munion, and that in defiance of their ecclesiastical superiors, from whom alone their spiritual privileges were derived. Unless the whole distinction between the civil and ecclesiastical law were at once overthrown, their lordships could not pass a note of suspension of l^aiuef '' this kind." Their lordships did pass it notwithstand- ing ; and unquestionably, in so doing, they obliterated entirely, in so far as that decision and their power could accomplish such a result, ** the whole distinc- tion between civil and ecclesiastical law." This extraordinary decision was regal'ded with all but universal astonishment. It overshot the mark. THE COLLISION. I35 It was erastian '' overmuch." It brought the arm of chap.ix. the civil power too grossly and palpably into the domain of the church. Even moderatism itself could hardly stand so wholesale a surrender to Caesar of the things of God. " Has your lordship heard of the ^thu'exP. extended interdict?" said a minister of the church of by"'-her source.' And ai^ain Sfairreu"^ ^ p gious bodies. — there is the Bishop of Exeter. We brought in a church discipline bill into the house of lords, — and immediately the bishop starts up and tells us, ' You are interfering with the divine rights of the episcopal office — you are presuming to legislate on matters above the reach of parliament — and if you do, I won't obey your law.' And now, here comes your church of Scotland. You stand upon your spiritual jurisdiction, and won't allow civil authority to touch it. Eh ! isn't that it — Eh!" and his lordship laughed heartily at his own joke. The joke after all was probably more than half earnest. It was under cover of just such a light- hearted bantering style his lordship was wont, on other and more public occasions, to unfold oftentimes his real feelings and thoughts. In describing what he con- nisiordship-s sidered to be the existinor tendency of bodies ecclesi- 'etsouuVe '=' ^ -' _ secret of the astical, Lord Melbourne was letting out inadvertently fensbns mfd the secret as to what is the undoubted tendency of poTitidaus. bodies political. To place all ecclesiastical communions in a state of subjection — even in their own internal spi- ritual affairs — to the secular power, and to use them as tools for merely political ends, is beyond all question the favourite scheme of almost every statesman of the present day. The deputies from the church of Scot- laud quietly observed, that possibly enough both the protestant and the popish prolate might turn out to be in the right in the particular matters to which his lord- ship referred : but that without presuming to meddle , 154 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP. X. with Other parties, the church of Scotland could at least say this for herself — that it was not as against law, but as on the footing of law, she was now resisting, as an established church, the encroachments of the civil power. They related briefly to his lordship the decided stand which that church had made from the ^r'^e'fe^rTtho reformation downwards for an independent jurisdiction SS'iiie"'" in matters spiritual, — referred to the statutes abolishing of'iTie"' '"" the civil supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, and ratify- ckuicii. jj^g ^j-^g church's right of self-goverament, — and, finally, reminded his lordship that ecclesiastical tyranny was not much to be dreaded in a church like that of Scot- land, whose great oflence was that of contending for the privileges of the people, — and which had, in all its courts, as many laymen as clergymen. His lordship having been thus brought back to the grave practical question with which the government had now to deal, if they really wished to prevent the dismemberment of the Scotch national church, he seemed to feel the force of the reasons that were urged for the immediate interposition of parliament. The interview was closed by his giving the deputies an assurance that the cabinet would undoubtedly give its best attention to the subject. Their interview with ^th^deTiuL Lord John Russell, which took place on the following j.'.lm^i'us. day, was a little more to the point. He admitted that promises to tlic intcrvcution of the legislature had become indis- givc tlie an- '-' governmut pcnsablc, — that things could not go on as they were : m Miurcii. ^^^^ j^^ engaged to give, on the part of the cabinet, a definite answer as to the intentions of government, by the middle of March. His lordship further expressed his hope, that they would be able by that time to pro- THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. I55 pose a satisfactory measure, — and authorized tliis chap.x. statement to be communicated to the assembly's com- mittee. And this was all the progress which the government of the country had yet made in a question affecting the safety of one of the most important of our national institutions ! It is true, as has been already noticed, the government was weak, — it could with difficulty command a majority in the house of commons, and it was at the mercy of the opposition in the house of lords. This consideration, however, '^onlf'^o-^^^ neither did nor could absolve them from the duty IheTdnses"' which their position imposed, of attempting at least JJJf^'g^'J.'jf.g to put an end to evils and dangers so formidable as ofTi'iisim!'' those which were convulsing the church, and threaten- quesuou. ing the religious peace of Scotland. While these tedious and vexatious negociations were in progress, an event occurred which served very painfully to show how secondary an object, in the eyes of statesmen, whether whig or conservative, was the stability of the church of Scotland, compared with the strengthening of their own party and political interest. A vacancy occurred in the representation of the county Tiie Perth- ofPerth : and all at once the church question seemed to have started up into first-rate importance. Non- intrusion might turn out to have something to say in returning the member for the Scottish Yorkshire, — and, therefore, non-intrusion found all at once, both whig and conservative, cap in hand, before it ; and full of all possible respect and deference. The Times, then the powerful organ of the conservatives, suddenly discovered that non-intrusion had undoubtedly carried Scotland, — but coaxingly suggested that the non- sliire elec- tiuu, anil its influence on the Church question. 256 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.x. intrusion conservatives should unite with high tory Nonintrn- moderates to secure the return of a follower of Sir sion made a JucS. Robert Peel. While on the other hand, a whig can- didate, backed by agents of the government, sent down in hot haste from Downing-street, appeared in Perthshire, with non-intrusion for his cheval de hataille in the electioneering conflict. To those who had access to see anything of what was going on behind the scenes of the political stage in London, it was abundantly apparent that not the merits of the church question, whether constitutionally or scripturally con- sidered,— nor its connection with the moral and spiri- tual well-being of the Scottish people, — but simply its bearing on the Perthshire election, was the point of view from which the leading statesmen and politicians of the day were regarding it. And when at length, partly through the great territorial influence of con- servative landlords, partly through the high personal character of the candidate himself, and partly from the declarations which he made of his willingness to support a non-intrusion bill, the struggle terminated in favour of the conservative, — it was impossible not to mark the diminished interest with which the ques- tion came immediately to be regarded by the political supporters of the government, if not by the members of the cabinet themselves. Non-intrusion proved a Dirmnbhcd less potcut spcU iu tlic liauds of the political conjurors Intheques- of tlic rofomi club than they had anticipated, and in tion on find- "x l l l • ,^ p c ingtiiatit consequence it had become in the eyes or many oi serve their tlieiii a thlnor wliollv iudlffierent if not alt02:ether vile. purposes in o •/ O eeringlm"" ^hc conscrvatlvcs, on the other hand, had gained the victory, and as they conceived, without being at THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. ^^^ all indebted to the friends of non-intrusion. Their chap. x. candidate had not bid so high on that side as the ^|°"n''i'i!,a'' whig, and yet the whig had been defeated. They wmfthete- foro-ot, indeed, or did not choose to remember, that success^ <=> ' ' _ _ _ ' camlidate their own candidate carried non-intrusion colours as si.-re.^Jh^n well as his opponent; thouf^h the lej^end which they t'tvTdll , . . . , iT , ' posed to bore was, it is true, neither so explicit nor so com- ^uow. prehensive as that which flared upon the banners of his rival. The whig was for the veto of the congrega- tion, as regulated by the assembly's act of 1834. The conservative was for the presbyterial veto, as described in the speech of Dr. Chalmers in the assembly of the year before. But still, this presbyterial veto was to be free from the control of the civil courts, and such as would enable the church courts to secure, in each case as it arose, that no pastor should be intruded upon a congregation contrary to their will. They also forgot, or failed to bear in mind, that with this latter proposi- tion many of the Perthshire non-intrusionists were Keason why induced to close, on the jxround of its beino; given out intrusionists , ^ ° . . suppoited and universally believed, that the conservative candi- tativrcau- date was the exponent upon this subject of the views of Sir Robert Peel and of Lord Aberdeen, who were understood, and not without cause, to be more able than the whigs to secure for their plan the concur- rence of the house of the Lords. The whig promise, thouo'h much the larger and more liberal of the two, many of the conservative non-intrusionists were dis- posed to think would prove only a tub to the whale. The conservative, on the other hand, engaged for less ; but there seemed so much greater a probability of obtaining the measure which his powerful party were ;^5g THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. X. believecl to have sanctioned witli tlieir approbation, that the less, by not a few, was in these circumstances preferred to the greater measure, — on the same principle that an actual hona fide cottage would, by most people, be preferred to a chateau en esjyapie. The conservative chiefs seemed not much disposed, however, to give credit for any share of their candi- date's success to non-intrusion at all. Nay rather, they took credit for his having succeeded in spite of ^Jl^j^^'^p'^ it. It was known that Mr. Dunlop, an able and during t'lie zcalous member of the assembly's non-intrusion com- contest. , mittee, had gone to Perthshire durmg the contest, and had cast the weight of his name and influence into the opposite scale. He had gone at the urgent entreaty of friends, electors in the county, who wished to have the benefit of his assistance and advice in judging of the precise import of those declarations, in favour of non-intrusion, which the candidates were giving forth; and naturally enough, — dispassionate people would probably use a stronger word and say that necessarily — he decided in favour of the candidate whose declara- tion went the fidl length of the church's demands. In all this Mr. Dunlop proceeded on his own private and personal responsibility alone. The circumstance. His visit mi?- bowever, served as a ready excuse, with many of the represented, ' J ' J againsuhe Icadiug couscrvativcs in London, for considering them- non'-intru- sclvcs aud tlicir party as extremely ill-used by the sion iu Lon- ... . ■ •'o"- non-intrusionists, and for looking more coldly than ever upon their cause and claims. Altogether, it seemed as if the Perthshire election had been destined to show, that in the estimation of contending politicians, the gaining of another vote in parliament was a matter THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. 159 of unspeakcably greater moment than the restoring of chap.x. peace to the chnrch of Scothmd. Patriotism is by no means so strong a principle, even in the highest places of the land, as the love of place and power. At length the time arrived when the promised ^.itilJI^Zi'''^ idtimatum of the government was to have been given, vemmeut. The ''ides of March" came and went, but the oracle continued silent. The deputies of the assembly's committee were again at their post, and reminded both Lord Melbourne and Lord John Kussell of their former statement. It was not, however, till after a succession of delays, that at length, on the 26th of March, the same individuals who had represented the committee in February, were again admitted to an interview with Lord John Russell. His lordship explained, as his reason for having kept them waiting long in the ante-room, that he expected to have seen the lord advocate before giving them the answer of the government; but that gentleman not having yet appeared, he was unwilling to detain them longer, and would now therefore, at once, proceed to inform them of the conclusion to which the cabinet, after much consideration of the subject, had come. '' They statement of thought," his lordship said, "that they could frame a measure fitted to serve the object the church had in view, and which ought to be satisfactory; but he did not see any reasonable prospect of their being able to carry it through the legislature. There was so much division on the subject in the church itself, in the country, and in parliament, that they despaired of being able to obtain, at present, the necessary support for such a measure as they would be disposed to intro- Kussell to the deputies of the Church. IgO THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. X. ducG. Bj aiid hje, perhaps, there might come to ^that'tUr exist a greater unanimity on the subject, and then it government j^^' |^^ |^g '^-^ their DOwcr to cfFect what could not be intend to ° , , rrn t • i iiitroduce a attempted now. Ihe deputies represented very earnestly to his lordship the extreme danger of leaving such a question unsettled, — that every day's delay must serve to a"ew/'^^ on such a basis as the committee then understood the scheme of Lord Aberdeen to rest on, would have substituted the ''will of the presbytery" for the ''will of the people;" which certainly, whatever might be said of it, would have been to adopt altogether a dif- ferent non-intrusion from that which the assembly had declared to be coeval with the reformation. In the same letter the committee further explained Further ex- .... planatiou of that " any proposition implying that the church should tJ^g^ '°™™''^' not have power to reject, simply in respect of the cir- cumstance that the congregation continue to oppose the settlement, they cannot listen to even for a moment." In his reply to this communication, his lordship, on the 1st of February, wrote to the secretaries of the commit- tee in these terms: — "It is very agreeable to me to be able to assure you that you have entirely misappre- hended the import of my letter:" he hoped it " would ^dlen^assures be found sufficiently clear and explicit: and that there teetheyhave '' ^ ^ misunuer- is no expression which can fairly be understood to limit or fetter the discretion of the presbytery in the ordination and admission of ministers." To illustrate his meaning his lordship put a case, — and unhappily this case restored the sus^Dicions which the first part of his letter seemed so well fitted to remove. The case taken one way involved the very limitation of stood liis proposition. 170 '^^^E TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.x. which the committee complained: while, taken another way, it was quite in harmony with the fullest discre- tion of the presbytery. It might have seemed like rudeness to insist on putting upon the case in question the construction that would have practically contra- dicted the natural import of the statement to which it was subjoined. The committee, accordingly, in order to combine respect for his lordship with a full under- standing as to the point in dispute, assumed that the case was meant to be taken in the other sense ; in that sense, namely — that was compatible with the absolute T'^^.co"^'™;^-. veto of the presbytery. *' The committee," they they do Mt wrote, on the 4th February, ''are gratified to find stand his that they have so entirely misapprehended your lord- now. ship's sentiments, and they trust they do not misimder- sta7id them now, in supposing you to agree that the church courts should have the power to reject a pre- sentee on consideration of the continued opposition of the people, although they should think the reasons assigned for that opposition as frivolous as that in the case supposed by your lordship, viz. — his hair being- red. Your lordship's proposition thus explained, will receive from the committee an attentive and favour- able consideration." His lordship had put an extreme The extreme casc, but ouB wliicli, for that very reason, seemed the case put hy n i 1 1 i • • T his lordship better fitted to remove ail ambio-uity as to the extent seemed well '-' •' mistratethe ^f tlic prcsbytcry's power under the scheme proposed. i^ca nnport jy^^ Chalmcrs, who had not participated in the original view which the committee took of Lord Aberdeen's proposition, and who at first thought his colleagues somewhat hypercritical and suspicious in the interpre- tations they had put upon it, had written Lord Aber- THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. l^j-^ deen, on the 27th Jaiiuaiy, at great length upon the chap. x. subject, and in the course of that communication had i^^ttm- of d,-. J ' Clialm'jis to said, '' On further reflection I am satisfied the gentle- deell.'^'"'" men who brought forward the instance of a dissent being sustained irrespective of the treasons, did right; first, because it was fair and honest that you should understand the full extent of the judicial power which we desire for the church: second, because though the reasons, as expressed by the people, might none of them be of a very presentable or pleadable character, there might after all be a well-founded dislike on their part, that might prove a most eff'ectual moral barrier in the way of a minister's christian usefulness among them: and third, because unless the measure be of that full and comprehensive nature which may provide for every possible or conceivable instance, and so as to make the presbyterial veto quite absolute, — we shall not be placed quite securely beyond the reach of inter- ference, and so of a collision with the court of session." And again, ** We do not say, '->" "' "" that we desire the church to be bound in every instance, as by a veto-law, to reject the presentee in respect of a dissent irrespective of the grounds; but that the church will Tiie cimrch ^ ° must have not abandon the power of so rejecting him, if it seem "f rejecting to her right. Short of this we shall be exposed to the simpTy bl'" same shameful treatment of our people which disOTaced continued' ^ ^ O dissent of the ecclesiastical proceedings of last century, with the g^tion"^"" fresh danger now of the court of session finding its way, through some opening or other, to the proper business of a church, not secured in the full exercise of her judicial and administrative power in eveiy case that IY2 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.x. comes before us.""' Now it was in reply to this most explicit commmiication from Dr. Chalmers, and after receiving also the letter quoted above, from the assem- bly's committee, under date the 4th of February, that his lordship, writing to Dr. Chalmers, on the 6th of that month, made use of the following words: — " I cannot help thanking you for your last letter; with the Lord Aber- scntimeuts expressed in which I almost entirely concur. deen's reply: . , ,. , tfmatethat" ^ ^"^ ^^^^ ^appy to pcrccive that you did not misap- areCwa't prchcnd the import of my former communication. This the committee very unaccountably did; but the matter is now explained, and I am not aware of any material difference existing in the objects proposed by the com- mittee and those which I should be prepared to sup- port."! '*Is it possible after all this," the reader exclaims, "either that the committee could have misunderstood Lord Aberdeen, or that Lord Aberdeen could have misunderstood the committee!" Subsequent events will shew: but meanwhile, these explanations may Tins cone?- sufficc to iudicatc in what circumstances it was, that "iu'footin'° ^^® deputies of the assembly's committee in London d'eVuties bad been conferring with his lordship at the period quentiy eon", now uudcr rcvicw. They were conferring with him ferring with . , "^ ~ ili'Londonf ^^ ^^^^ footiug of his bciug friendly to a measure, which, though not going by any means the full length of the assembly's wishes, would at least go far enough to prevent the disruption of the church. There was a * Earl of Aberdeen's Correspondence with Dr. Chalmers and the Secretaries of the Non-Intrusion Committee, pp. 14 — 16. t Ibid, p. 25. THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. 173 short time indeed during which he seemed disposed chap.x. to take a step very much in advance of the proposition he had submitted to the committee. About a week before Lord John Russell had announced the final determination of government, not to move in the business at all. Lord Aberdeen had signified to one ms lordsinp of the deputies from the church, that he was becominof disposition A ' c3 to go fur- more and more inclined to the settlement of the ques- i5'iat"eVu tion on the footing of the positive call, as being the ofVe^pdll true old constitutional usage of the church of Scotland. There can be no doubt this would have been more satisfactory to the church than even the veto itself. In reference to the question — ''what proportion of the congregation would be necessary to make the call efficient?" — his lordship admitted, that less than a majority could not well be proposed. All human affairs, he said, were governed by majorities, — and any smaller number would be considered as a mere arbitrary arrangement, resting on no recognized or intelligible principle. Had he adhered to these views, there would, in all probability, have been no occasion to write this history. At their first interview with Lord Aberdeen, after receiving the ultimatum of the govern- ment, the deputies recurred to this idea of a measure based upon the positive call, and found his lordship still entertaining it. Parliament was then on the verge of the Easter holidays, and when the deputies '"^^^^ti'l^J^^'^ij" left London in consequence, they had authority from shij^tocmr. his lordship to consult the assembly's committee, as mMee^To to this new idea of giving efficiency to the call. This ^^^f^^ was accordingly done, at a meeting of the committee held in Edinburgh on the 4th of April, — and their ■jl^^^ THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.x. '' cordial approval" of sucli a measure was formally commmiicated to Lord Aberdeen by the Rev. Mr. Buchanan, on tlie 6tli of the same month. But mean- while his lordship, unfortunately for the peace of the church, had suddenly and entirely abandoned the Tiie commit- projcct of the positive call. On the very day on which Sprovai.'^'''' the committee were giving it their cordial approbation, Lord Aberdeen addressed a letter to Dr. Chalmers, in which, after alluding to his ''communications with Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Dunlop before their departure from London," he went onto say, — **I had mentioned to them the project of an enactment by which the call should be rendered more effectual, and thus accomplishing the object desired by obtaining an assent on the part of the people. Eor some time I regarded this project with favour, and was very desirous of carrying it into effect. Further examination and His lordship reflection, however, have convinced me that it would it'* ' be quite impracticable, and I have therefore abandoned it altogether."* What it was that rendered such a measure " impracticable," his lordship did not explain. He had communicated in the interim with those "with whom he is in the habit of acting." If the Dean of Faculty was among the number, the change in his lordship's views ought not to awaken any great sur- prise. Still the committee had no reason to think, and did not imagine, that his lordship had gone back from the position in which, at the date of their former correspondence, he was understood to stand: and this the rather, that in his letter announcing the abandon- * Earl of Aberdeen's Correspondence, p. 46. THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. i>y^ ment of tlie project of the positive call, lie informed chap.x. a letter to Dr. i:hal- mers, tliat introduce into parliament, " will be founded on the recognition of the judicial powers of the church courts ^;;';„;;^jq^ in the matters in question, — very much in accordance tedaueto.' with your own views of that which, though not the most desirable, might be regarded as the most practi- cable solution of the existing difficulties/' Lord Aberdeen had now ultroneously taken the matter into his own hands. For not only had he, without waiting for any communication from the committee, given notice on the 31st of March, in his place in the house of peers, of his intention to bring in a bill, — but when Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Buchanan proceeded to London in the beginning of April, they were informed by his lordship that he ^'4|.7^,f^'P declined conferring with them as a deputation from the "reiy^into" committee. Havin* 111* •• c • 1 private indi- London. ±Jemg asked their opinion or it, they at once ^idwais. replied that the enacting clauses at the end of the bill (luce liis lordship to alter it. 1>YQ THE TEN TOARS' CONFLICT. chap.x. seemed much narrower than the declaratory clauses at the beginning of it. Beyond some general statements of the same import, both of them declined to speak more explicitly, until they should have had a copy of the bill in their hands, and time to study it. They did receive a copy on the evening of the following day. Tiieyaresa- Tlic carcful pcrusal of it Satisfied them fully that the tisfied that A _ '' of thiVoin't* bill did not give an unfettered discretion to the pres- to have been bytery in the exercise of its judicial power, and could agreed upou, •/ -i i i i i i • vourto'^in- "^* possibly be accepted by the church, without an entire surrender of the non-intrusion princij^le. They accordingly sought and obtained an interview with his lordship, at which they endeavoured, with much anxiety and energy, to induce his lordship to make, what they accounted, indispensable alterations upon the bill. This was on Friday the 1 st of May. His lordship had informed them of his intention to leave town on the following day, and not to return till Tuesday the 5th, the day on which his bill was to be laid on the table of the house of lords. Knowing, therefore, that no other opportunity would be afforded them of conferring further with his lordship on the subject, and being fully alive to the mischiefs that must inevitably arise, if his lordship and his political friends should once have committed themselves to the bill as it then stood, they addressed next morning a joint letter to his lordship, which has not hitherto been published. It was in these terms: and serves very conclusively to show how early and how distinctly his lordship was made aware that his bill did not come up to what Dr. Chalmers and the non-intrusion committee had again and again declared to be the very minimum THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. 177 of tlieir principle, and how certainly and inevitably it chap. x. must, in consequence, be rejected by the church. •' London, 2d May, 1840. "Lord Aberdeen, — At the interview with which Tiieir letter your lordship was pleased to honour us yesterday, Aberdeen •' A ■■• J J ' assunnghim we endeavoured, though we fear very imperfectly, to wiube re"*-" impress upon your lordship's mind, that in suggesting churcKn- a series of alterations on the draft of the bill which m the man- ner suggest- your lordship proposes to submit to the house of peers "'^ ''^ """'' on Tuesday next, we were actuated by nothing but the most sincere and earnest desire to promote the success of your lordship's measure, and to aid in realizing the great object which has engaged so much of your solicitude. ** We consider it to be of so much importance, at the present moment, to remove from your lordship's mind all doubt as to the nature of our motives, that we are induced, in this more formal and deliberate manner, to reiterate the assurance which we personally gave to your lordship yesterday, and to state that every consideration combines to awaken in our minds the deepest and most intense interest in the success of the undertaking in which your lordship is engaged, and that we were impelled to offer the suggestions which xhe friendly we submitted to your lordship solely from a conviction wbici/their •' . suggestions that their adoption is absolutely indispensable to the »« offered. attainment of your object. " As we stated to your lordship, — we have no authority to bind the church of Scotland, — nor are we in a situation positively to pledge ourselves as to the course which the church may pursue under any given circumstances. At the same time we have, both of l^^Q THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT, cnAP, X. US, endeavoured, tliroiigliout tlie whole controversy, to preserve our minds free from partial or extreme views, and from every degree of undue warmth that might tend to disturb the exercise of our judgment, — while from the circumstances in which we have been placed, we have had peculiar opportunities of becoming acquainted with the views and sentiments prevailing in the church, and of estimating their probable influ- ence on her course of conduct. ** It is in these circumstances that we ventured to state it to your lordship, as our united and most decided opinion, that the bill, as submitted to us by your lord- ship, would infallibly be rejected by the church, and by a large majority of the ensuing geyieral assembly : while, on the other hand, our opinion is not less decided that If modified as ^hc bill, if modified according to the susfgestions which proposed, ' o Co toiudbe we found it necessary to offer — and more especially, if but^Mt ' by beinor read a second time, the principle embodied othemise. . . . . in it shall have obtained the sanction of one branch of the legislature before the assembly meets, — would be acquiesced in by the assembly in such terms as would be satisfactory to your lordship, and as would be fitted and designed to secure the success of the bill in both houses of parliament. If the bill, therefore, should remain unaltered, we can expect no result from it but Appeal to Ms immediate disappointment to your lordship's excellent intentions, and a continuation of those ruinous distrac- tions which it is so desirable to terminate. Whereas, should your lordship be induced to modify the measure in the manner we have recommended, there is every reason to hope that there will be accomplished, through your lordship's instrumentality, the happiest deliver- THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. j-jrj) ance to the churcli and country from evils of the most chai-.x. aj^palling magnitude. " We have no intention of repeating here any of the statements which we ventured to make, though most imperfectly, to your lordship, with the view of obviating any objections to the adoption of the alterations which i^'isionisinp '■ agi-eeil to tlic we suggested on the bill,— and which alterations all irthcprind- follow, as matter of course, if your lordshij) should I'itiie'" resolve to adopt the modification in the principle of t'o»s^oui side of putting the most favourable construction on p^ntmenT every clause, and of labouring to harmonize, with all bV my might, its various provisions, with that indepen- dence which belongs to a christian church, and which we did not renounce in the act of becoming a national church. I little thought, my lord, after my incessant attempts all last year to bring down others to the point at which I conceived your lordship willing for a settle- ment, I should have met with a fresh obstacle in finding that your lordshijD has taken up a position so much lower than I was counting on." "' "' "-•" "The three things which are fatal to the bill are, first, the "fSa?objec- obligation laid on the presbytery to give its judgment exclusively on the reasons, instead of leaving a liherum arhitrium in all the circumstances of the case." ''" "' Secondly, because the bill, in its whole tone and struc- ture, subordinates the church to the civil power in 134 THE TEx\ YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.x. tilings spiritual. '* "' '^ " ^* Thirdly, it is substan- tially tlie same measure with that which was moved for by Dr. Cook and rejected by the church." Along Dr. Chalmers with tlils letter Dr. Chalmers transmitted a copy of the returns Uil ne"eIsaV'^ bill, wltli uotos of tlic alterations which he deemed in- alteratious marked upon it. dispensable, and which were substantially the same as those previously proposed by Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Hamilton. Lord Aberdeen, in answering this letter, expressed his conviction that Dr. Chalmers was " under a misapprehension in supposing that the bill limits or restricts" the "liberum arbitrium of the presbytery in the matter of collation." ''Your lordship," wrote Dr. Chalmers in reply, '' seems to think that the bill, as it stands, does not limit or restrain the liberum arbitrium of the presbytery. Now it appears to me that it does so in one most important particular. The presbytei-y are restricted by it from giving effect to the conscientious dissent of the people, on the ground of the simple fact of that dissent and irrespective of reasons." ""* * *' The church thouo-ht so much due o to the conscientious dissent of the people, that it passed a law, making it imperative on presbyteries to give way to such a dissent in all instances whatever. By Another let- rcscindinof that law this ceases to be imperative: but ter from Dr. ° ^ _ . . T wTber-" y^^^ lordship's bill does not stop at this point. It fugu"^"!^ furthermore lays down such a restriction as makes it imperative on the church to give effect to such a dissent in no instances whatever. How is it possible so to revolutionize the mind of the church, that after thinking so well of a principle as to have framed the device of a veto-law, for the purpose of giving universal and unexcepted effect to it, she shall go round to the THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. ^85 diametrically opposite point of the compass, and cuap.x. submit to a restraint by which she is expressly tied up, and it becomes impossible for her to give effect to that principle in any case, however conscientious she judges the dissent to be." This statement, after some further correspondence regarding it, elicited at length the irreconcilable difference which subsisted between the views of Lord Aberdeen and Dr. Chalmers. His lordship, in a letter dated the 21st of May, observes — '^euaiS"' '* I repeat that I have not the slightest wish or inten- [^"eeTwr!" tion to restrict, in any manner whatever, the liberum viets°*and aroitriwn, as you call it, of the church courts. In Jg^jJ^j*''' whatever manner it exists, according to law, so let it peaks'! ''^" remain.'* Of course, if the law as interpreted by the late decisions had left to the church courts the free and full discretion Dr. Chalmers was seeking to secure, there would have been no need for Lord Aberdeen's bill. To say, therefore, " in whatever manner" that discretion " exists according to law, let it remain" — was to say nothing to the purpose which all along Dr. Chalmers had had in view. But Lord Aberdeen made himself still more explicit, when he went on to say, ''Let me recall to your recollection what is the state in which I find the church. The house of lords, in affirming ^^l^^^^i, the judgment of the court of session, has declared lJii7is°pre"' that a presbytery, by rejecting a presentee on the sole condemns it. ground that a majority of the male heads of families have dissented, without any reasons assigned, from his admission as minister, act illegally, in violation of their duty, and contrary to the provisions of the statute. Now this restriction is not imposed by my bill, but by the existing law of the land. I apprehend 186 THE TEiN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.x. that no presbytery will be permitted in future to reject a presentee on such grounds; and it certainly was never my purpose to enable them to do so." No one ^mdwin^ is entitled to say it was, since his lordship so explicitly Aberdeen dcnlcs it; but, at the same time, few who read the out sooner corrcspondeuce will wonder that, up till that time, Dr. meaut"' Chalmcrs should have been of a different opinion. So long before as the 27th of January, Dr. Chalmers had written to his lordship — " We are willing that reasons should always accompany dissent, and that these reasons should be dealt with and canvassed to the uttermost ; but we are not willing that we should be bound to admit the presentee if the people do not make good their reasons. On the contrary, we hold ourselves free, though not ohliged, to exclude a pre- sentee because of the strength of the popular dislike, though not substantiated by express reasons." And again, in the same letter, " We do not say in that ^Statement's Tcply (of tlic nou-intrusion committee) that we desire mers'onthe the churcli to \>Q bouud in every instance, as by a subject. . . •' n ^^ veto-law, to reject the presentee in respect of a dissent, irrespective of the grounds; but that the church will not abandon the power of so rejecting him, if it seem to her right." It was about the same period the committee itself, in the already noticed official com- munication signed by its secretaries, Mr. Candlish and Mr. Dunlop, hoped they did not misunderstand his lordship's intended measure in sujjposing it to leave the presbytery free to reject a presentee " in Tiie state- coiisideratioii of the continued opposition of the people, mentofthe . , , , i ii i • , i • i p committee, altliough thcy should thmk the reasons assigned tor that opposition as frivolous as that in the case sup- THE CHURCH AND THE POLITICIANS. ;[87 posed by your lordsliip — viz., his hair being red." chak x. What did or could Dr. Chahners and the committee ™df,e intend by such lanoruao^e but to sipjnify their under- tuesfsufte- standing that the dissent of the congregation, alone *,°JtX'^ig. and of itself, was to be a valid ground of rejection peoJ,i°/^^^ under the intended bill, in every case in which the sein,e a ' ' * valid ground presbytery thought fit to hold it as such ? It was [y^'eptst^.s with both of the statements before him, — that of ^'"'' Dr. Chalmers and that of the secretaries of the non- intrusion committee, — that Lord Aberdeen expressed himself, in a letter to Dr. Chalmers, as being " happy to perceive that he (Dr. C.) did not misapprehend the import of his (Lord A.'s) former communication." " This," his lordship added, " the committee very unaccountably did ; but the matter is now explained, and I am not aware of any material difference existing in the objects proposed by the committee and those which I should be prepared to support." It would seem, however, that a serious difference must have been lurking all the while beneath the surface of this apparent agreement. Certain it is the non-intrusion committee might as well have attempted to square the circle as to harmonize what turned out to be Lord Aberdeen's views with theirs. They were bent on no possibility . ^ of harmouiz- having, at the very least, liberty to reject a presentee jf^o^ft^J" solely because of the continued dissent of the con- know'^ap'-'' greo'ation: and Lord Aberdeen was equally bent Aberdeen , , , . I J entertained, on making this impossible. Perhaps the secret of ^?ie^,s"n),e the otherwise unaccountable misconstruction of each other's meaning may have lain in the use of the expression " judicial powers" of the church courts. By the committee and Dr. Chalmers that expression ]^gg THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiAP.x. was manifestly employed in contradistinction to the legislative powers exercised by the assembly in laying down the rule of the veto, according to which presby- teries were in all cases bound to proceed. They meant that the presbytery should be free in the exer- cise of its own judgment as to what was fit and right in the circumstances, — to do in any case what the veto-law would have compelled it to do in every case. It would seem, on the other hand, as if the expression in question must have conveyed to Lord Aberdeen a Apossibie ex- sense somewhat different. Construing the term judi- planation of ^ • • i i i • i i dereteiX"^ cial in a more rigid and technical way, he appears to have clung to the idea that it must, somehow or other, tie up the presbytery to a judgment upon the reasons of dissent. Many things passed, it is true, in the course of the correspondence which it is not easy to reconcile with this theory; but, on the other hand, there are qualifying expressions here and there in his lordship's letters which suggest the idea that this must have been the true source of the misunderstand- ing. Certain it is that any solution of the mystery that can be held to be admissible at all, is infinitely preferable to the offensive supposition of either party having intentionally misled the other. The character of Dr. Chalmers, — so ingenuous, confiding, and gene- Any supposi- reus, — placcs him immeasurably above the reach of such an imputation; and no one can read the corres- tion prefera- ble to one that would 'TerVarty poiideiice of the non-intrusion committee without either party a dcsiini to deceive the bciug Satisfied that their great and constant anxiety was to guard against any misunderstanding on their side as to the views of Lord Aberdeen, and on his as to the views of the committee. On the other hand. THE CHUKCH AND THE POLITICIANS. 289 the integrity and honour of Lord Aberdeen will not chap.x. allow any candid mind to interpret his proceed- ings in a way that would bring his sincerity into suspicion. The difference which had thus at lenojth come so Tiie discovery C5 now made fully out between his lordship and the non-intrusionists negotkuons was such as of necessity to bring their negotiations to *°**^^°'^" an end. To have acquiesced in the principle of his bill, would have been to give up both non-intrusion and spiritual independence. The bill disallowed the dis- sent of the congregation, and required the church courts to admit and ordain a presentee notwithstanding of such dissent, — unless indeed they came to be of opinion that, in all the circumstances of the case, the reasons whatthe wu implied. assigned by the people in support of their dissent were such as to justify and require his rejection. This, of course, implied that not the will of the congregation, nor even the will of the presbytery, should regulate the decision. It implied that the presbytery were com- petent to overbear the opposition of the people to the settlement of a particular minister, however conscien- tious that opposition might be; and, moreover, that they would be bound against their own will, and their sense of duty too, to overbear it, unless they them- selves, having judicially investigated and considered the reasons on which it rested, were prepared to pro- nounce the reasons to be sufficient. This was not the non-intrusion of the church of Scotland. According to that principle, as expounded and maintained by the church, it was the right and duty of congregations to say whether a particular minister had gifts and qualifications fitted to edify their souls. And it 190 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cnAP.x. assumed, that when a congregation honestly and deUberately said No, to that question, — the church court was not entitled to lord it over God's heritage, and to usurp dominion over their faith, by thrusting the obnoxious minister upon them notwithstanding: ^wouidhave tclling tlicm, in a tone of popish dictation and supre- bothtotte macy, '* We know better than you, — ^we think he can an7toThe ^^^fy l^^f ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ cnough." Not Icss certain is ttechura it that the principle of Lord Aberdeen's bill would have been fatal to the independence of the church in matters spiritual. According to the bill, it would matter nothing that a presbytery thought the settle- ment of a particular minister fitted to outrage the strongest convictions and best feelings of the flock, to bring rei^roach on the cause of religion, and to drive the people away from divine ordinances. It would matter nothing that for such reasons they might regard it as contrary to the will of Christ, and therefore sinful, to proceed. The bill made it imperative that the settle- ment should go on," unless the presbytery were pre- pared to take the responsibility of deciding that the reasons against the settlement urged by the 23eople were, all things considered, sufficient reasons, — a responsibility which they might not feel themselves either called on or competent to take. CHAP. XI. the assembly of 1840; the rejection of lord Aberdeen's bill, &c. In Scotland the bill was hailed bj the moderate party chap.xi. with iinmino;led delight, while it called forth amonof Thebiiiwei- ... . . coined by the non-intrusionists universal dissatisfaction. The atepartyf' first public discussion it underwent, took place in the provincial synod of Lothian and Tweeddale, on the 13th of May, a week after it had been laid on the table of the house of lords. After an elaborate and able exposition of its real character and design, a motion was carried in that synod by a majority of sixty to twenty, to overture the general assembly ''to take steps for opposing the bill, and preventing its being put into a law." In the general assembly the debate Meeting of T • 1 c^^ 1 /> TV/r X the General regarding it came on upon the 27th ot May. It was Assembly. opened by Dr. Chalmers in a speech which occupied three hours in the delivery. Speaking in the earlier portion of it upon the cardinal question of the church's spiritual independence, and the necessity of resisting, at whatever cost, any and every legislative measure which left it exposed to the ruinous encroachments of the court of session, he said, — " The leading speech of Pr. . 1 /. -1 • • ' ^ 1 • T Chalmers. principle ot presbytenamsni is that there is a dis- tinct government in the church, and which the state must have approved of ere it conferred on her the temporalities, — and we must be as uncontrolled by the state, in the management of our own proper affairs, as if we did not receive a farthing from the treasury. I 92 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. CHAPjn. -J^ -"- -;;- I take this principle to be the pecuUar "overument g^oij of thc chui'ch of Scotlaiid. We contended for it iheSi^rch durin f/sse^d"^'"' have sprung up from among ourselves, — who have establish- spoiled us of our armour, and have made us say, in the language of scripture — ' how are the weapons of war perished.' " Passing from the spiritual independence principle to that of non-intrusion, and coming into closer quarters with the bill. Dr. Chalmers, after describing it, observed — '* I cannot figure a more truly extraordinary result coming out of such an application for relief, from a hardship imposed on the church by a sentence of the court of session. Application for a remedy, you will observe, and that against a grievance which she prays might be removed, even an unexpected obstruction which has been thrown in her way when carrying into Thecimrch effcct bv a particular method she had herself devised, has applied •' ^ Kan'dTws — I mean the veto-law, — one of her great constitu- wrong."""* tional principles — that no man shall be intruded into a parish contrary to the will of the congregation. It, of course, is quite understood between the parties, that on a satisftictory substitute being found, the church will rescind her veto-law. Now how has this application been met ? Not by a substitute, enabling the church to give effect in another way to a principle which she stands solemnly pledged before God and THE REJECTION OF LORD ABERDEEN'S BILL. ^95 the country never to abandon, and which would lead chap.xi. at once to a rescinding of the veto-law; but to a truly different thing, sir, and which were tantamount to the entire and authoritative reversal of that law; and by overlooking the total diversity of import between these two things, to rescind and to reverse, we are presented with one of the strangest specimens of a sort of inter- change,— under the semblance, too, nay, with the honest design, I believe, of conferring a benefit, — which ever took place between two corporations residing within the limits of the same territory, and professing the greatest mutual value and deference for each other. For how does the matter stand ? We, the church, think so well of a principle, that we ti.c cimrcii raise it above the level of other and ordinary prin- tiiedisseut •' ^ of the con- ciples, by embodying it into a law; and, under the f^Xii^au'' sense of its universal and unexcepted worth, ordain tws wu^iii 1 •ini ' 1 • fY» • n* allow it to that it shall be carried into erlect in all instances. a^'"i'ii Now, how is this followed up ? They, the state, must think so ill of the said principle, that, not satisfied with casting it back on its old platform, along with the other principles on which the church is free, though not bound, to act in the settlement of ministers, they dishonour and degrade it below the level of all the rest, and, under the sense of its exceeding worthless- ness, ordain that it shall be carried into effect in no instances. Let it not be said that we may give effect to the dissent of the people on reasons shown. This we could do at all times, — pronounce on reasons: and Lord Aberdeen has truly said that he gives no addi- tional powers to the church by his bill. Yes, and by calling his a declaratory act, and leaving untouched n2 296 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciAP. XT. the decision by tlie court of session, from wliich we '^onV'"'iv"s* seek to be relieved, he as good as takes away a power tte''church° which, for 150 years, had never been denied to us. Joters fr He casts beyond the bounds of the liherum arhitrium joyed from '' r i it moriiirawr ^ rojcctiou ou tho fact of the popular dissent, — a principle in our eyes of sucli exceeding value that, a few years ago, we elevated it from the judicial to the legislative rank; and his lordship's way of retracing this movement is not to conduct it back again to the place it had among its fellows, but to cast it, conclu- sively and for ever, into the gulph of annihilation. He will allow us to take into consideration all the other circumstances but this: or, in other words, should the ecclesiastical legislature think so well of a principle as to raise it into a universal category, that is the signal for the civil legislature to knock it on the head. And thus, sir, the notable result, the reaction on our attempt to obtain protection and safety for a principle which we have resolved never to abandon, is the entire and irrecoverable extinction of it." After reading some part of the more recent correspondence regard- ing the bill which had taken place between himself and Lord Aberdeen, bringing out that essential disagreement between them which has been already explained. Dr. Chalmers concluded by proposing a Resolutions scrics of rcsolutious for the adoption of the house. Dr.chai- The fi7'st of these resolutions declared the church's mers. ♦' _ First: The uuchauging determination to '' assert and maintain orthe"^'"" the exclusive jurisdiction of the church in all matters spiritual," recognizing at the same time the supremacy of the civil courts in all matters touching the tempo- ralities of the benefice. The second, in similar terms. Church THE REJECTION OF LORD ABERDEEN'S BILL. IQ^ proclaimed the firm purpose to " assert and maintain chap.xi. the great and fmidamental principle of non-intrusion/' ^''Ztiill^ signifying at the same time the utmost willingness to 8^,'."'*'''" consider any modification of the provisions for carrying that principle into effect that were not inconsistent with the principle itself. The tJm^i — '' Having con- sidered the bill, entitled ' an act to remove doubts respecting the admission of ministers into benefices in that part of the kingdom called Scotland,' recently introduced into the house of lords, resolved — That while it makes no adequate provision, either for securino^ the exclusive iurisdiction of the church in T/urd: ne ° ^ ^ '> _ bill con- matters spiritual, or for enabling the church to carry 'i'^""i«'i- into effect the principle of non-intrusion, according to any specific law, the bill does not even leave the church courts at liberty in the exercise of their judicial functions, and on their own responsibility, to give effect to their own solemn convictions of duty in refusing to intrude presentees on reclaiming congregations ; nor does it protect them from civil coercion and control, when, in any particular case, they shall do so; and, therefore, inasmuch as this bill is inconsistent with the principles of the church, and threatens, if passed into a law in its present form, to produce effects which may be fatal to the church as a national establish- ment,— the general assembly cannot acquiesce in this bill, unless it be so altered as to be in conformity with the principles now expressed ; and that it is the duty of this church to use every effort to pre- vent its obtaining the sanction of the leijislature.'* Fourth: Pro- ^ _ '-' cecdings of The fourth resolution approved generally of the s-on'c"mmit- proceedings of the non-intrusion committee, whose pwvcd. |()g THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XI. report had been the formal occasion of bringing on the discussion, — appointed a committee to watch over the progress of any bill which might be brought into Instructions parliament on the subject, — and authorized this com- mitte'e."'"'' nilttec, " If they see cause, to bring before the legis- lature, in any competent way, the draft of such a measure as may appear to them best suited for the purpose in view." The first speaker on the other ^cie^r-fhe side was Sir Greorge Clerk. Enjoying the confidence fe'rt 0}" of the political chiefs of the conservative party, there the Assem" cau bo Uttlc doubt this experienced member of the l)ly. ^ house of commons had come down from parliament, partly to be the exponent of the views, and if need were, the defender of the proceedings, of Lord Aber- deen; and partly to aid, by his talents and knowledge of affairs, in carrying a vote of the assembly in favour of the bill. Though an elder of the church, it was the first time he had ever occupied a place in its supreme ^iMiiSue court. Sir George ''felt as strongly as any man their theuead' oblifjatiou to maintain the sole headship of our Lord ship of ° ^ Christ. ^yy^i Master, and he trusted that he should not be con- sidered one of those who were ready to make such a declaration, and to rest satisfied with so doino;, — but that he would be found, on any occasion when the banner inscribed with the motto, 'For Christ's crown and covenant,' must be unfurled, as ready to enlist under that banner as the reverend gentleman." The honourable speaker, however, left the house in no uncertainty as to the value of this testimony, when he Sir George doubts if it has l)i;i;ii immediately added, that " he doubted very much assiiiicl whether there was any occasion now to hoist that flag." Lethendy and Strathbogie combined had failed THE REJECTION OF LORD ABERDEEN'S BILL. IQQ to satisfy Sir George that the proper casus belli had chap. xi. arisen. The court of session had dragged ministers ™ay no'r of Christ to its bar, and threatened them with impri- fnteriict^'* /. T . . . . PI enough to sonment tor ordainmor a minister to a cure ot souls : convince o ' luiu. and had interdicted the preaching of the gospel in a whole district of country, except by men whose minis- terial functions had been suspended by the sentence of the church. But in all this there was nothiiiir, in Sir George's opinion, that touched the question of the Headship. The '* occasion" had not yet arrived for unfurling the banner, nor did the honourable baronet signify what those circumstances were in which it could at any time be said to have actually come. Such Tbe value of declarations in favour of a fj^reat principle are like bills rations in*" ^ ■•■ ■*- support of made payable at the Greek kalends. They read well *|;-,'^'''"^- enough, but they never fall due. Speaking of the bill. Sir George remarked that it did not " take away any right inherent in the church, if such right were inherent, of an milimited power of rejecting a presentee. The power of the church had been limited by the interpretation of the civil court in one particular, and one only. It had been decided that the rejection of a presentee, merely on account of the dissent of the people without reasons, was illegal, and beyond the power of the church. It was, there- Admits that fore, perfectly clear that if Lord Aberdeen was to ^!fj'^ embody an opposite interpretation in this declaratory gnm" act, it would be impossible for him to call on the thTlnThter i ^ ^ arcler deci- house of lords, in its legislative capacity, to declare tll'enatay. that the mere fact of the dissent of the heads of families of a parish was a reason for rejecting a pre- sentee : while the house had only a few months before. sbiU not meant to 200 '^^^^ "^^^ YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XI. in tlieii' judicial capacity, declared that such was not the law of the land." Most true, — ^but who required this thing of Lord Aberdeen, that he should proceed in the way of a declaratory act ? " The right honour- ^speeS''"' able gentleman had defended the bill," said Mr. Dun- Ge^Mge!-"" lop, replying to the baronet's speech, " on the ground tiiebiii. i\^^i \i ^yas a declaratory act. Why — were they not struo-irlino- ao^ainst a declaration of the court of session, — a declaration of the law as it stood. They had been opposed by that declaratory finding, and they had sought relief. In these circumstances, the Earl of Aberdeen j^rofessed to come to their aid, — but what was the aid he offered them ? To rivet upon them, by his declaratory enactment, that very law against which they were contending as a grievance." Mr. Dunlop alluded to the provision contained in the bill on account of which some superficial readers were tempted at first to conclude, that whatever else the bill did, it at least protected the church from the interference of the courts of law. It enacted that the appeal from any sentence pronounced under this proposed law, '' shall be exclusively to the superior ecclesiastical courts, according to the forms and government of the church The biu will of Scotland as by law established." " This provi- not protect . , , . i -» t- t-v i • i fromthJii sion, continued Mr. Dunlop, *' was said to protect cwu°court3.^ them from all aggression, from all interference on the part of the civil courts. In one respect, there was a change of the law proposed by that bill — and it was, that whereas the church was entitled to say, upon her own responsibility, that a presentee was not qualified, and that was enough for the civil court; but now the church was to be called upon (by Lord Aberdeen's THE REJECTION OF LORD ABERDEEN'S BILL. 201 bill) to state and set forth the objections and reasons chap xi, in respect of which the presentee was set aside. He ^^^io^j"'!?"'' would not say that this part of the bill was intended, but Sdirec% he would say that it was at least calculated to lay the toiet'mthc •' •' courts of church 023en to the most destructive interference from ^^'''• the civil courts. Why was it enacted that the reasons of rejection should be specified? Just in order to give the civil courts an opportunity to take them up, and consider whether they were the reasons which, under statute, the church was entitled to reject upon ; and if the civil court found that, in determining the rejec- tion, the church had gone one hair's breadth beyond the ground marked out by the act, then the civil power would come in and coerce by pains and penalties." After making it manifest, by clear and conclusive argument, that this bill would rob the church both of its non-intrusion principle and of its right of self- government, — Mr. Dunlop indignantly exclaimed, " What boon did that bill confer which merely declared the law as it was ? They could do as they They couid •' •' abandon were, without any new law. They could rescind the JlJelTthout veto, abandon the risfhts of the people, and resolve to twsbu/!and ,„,.,. this is what withdraw themselves from the struggle for then- chris- ^^l^f^^^. tian rights and privileges. And what then did the fl "'"" ^° bill do ? It removed doubts. Yes, it removed doubts, and these of different kinds. They might have looked for a more favourable enactment, — that doubt was at an end. Many doubted as to the possibility of an effective revival of the call : many doubted whether, if they had stood upon the (positive) call, the Auch- terarder case might not have been different from what it was, — and they had hoped to have yet got perhaps 202 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chapj^i. g^ favourable decision on that point. All doubt on "^doubtf °^ that head was now gone. The bill, too, would remove biuremoved. the doubt that had been thrown out by Lord Brougham — a doubt which had never been felt in the court of session. It made perpetual the adverse decision which might only have been temporary. It chained them down for ever in fetters of iron to the law as it was now declared." ^x'M'LeJcrs The Rev. Dr. M'Leod, of Glasgow, had a much speed,. ]jQiiQY opinion of the bill than the preceding speaker. It was the great charm of the bill to the minister of the modern St. Columba's, that the bill was simply declaratory, and that it dealt so largely in the removal of doubts. " Let us dwell," said he, " on the fact that it is a declaratory bill. Its very title informs us, that its object is to remove certain doubts as to the objection of the people in the collation of ministers. Thinks the Now, will any body say that there is no boon conferred bill a "Teat J J •/ tCdouhu- ^y t^^^ settling of these doubts ?" Dr. M'Leod failed Sof Mr. to notice that the point of Mr. Dunlop's remark upon gumeut. the '* doubts," lay here, — that the assembly could have removed them quite as effectually without the help of an act of parliament at all, — that is, by simply giving up the whole matters in dispute ! The Rev. Doctor found no fault with a door being left open for the court of session. Anything else, he thought, ''would be in the highest degree objectionable, as it might be made a tyrannical measure. Suppose, for Puts a case: instaucc, if I, Norman M'Leod, was presented to the thc'parrsho'fP^^i'^^^^ of Eigg, inhabited by the clan McDonald, an ^'"°' island in which, among its other curiosities, is shown a cave in which are still to be found the dry bones of THE REJECTION OF LORD ABERDEEN'S BILL. 203 he would be entitled to get redress in the civil court. the clan McDonald, cruelly massacred long since by chap.xt. the M'Leods ; and that an objection was raised aojainst "°''i' *'^''*™ ' •> O sucli a case my presentation simply on the ground that I was a M'Leod, I would consider myself entitled to protection from a sentence on such causeless prejudice as this." But while he would not have shrunk to intrude him- self on the McDonalds of Eigg, despite of all such hereditary enmity, he was not by any means an out- and-out intrusionist. He could face the stern veto of the McDonalds of Eigg — but not for a moment could he confront, with a similar hardihood, the young ladies of the modern Athens. *' I shall suppose," said he. Puts another ^ •■■ ' case: his " another case which may, perhaps, come much nearer seSTa to the point. Suppose I had the offer of a church in KdlXil-gh. Edinburgh. "' "" ""' Suppose the Edinburgh con- gregation had no objections to me, but that some professors and teachers of elocution might say, ' No ; his highland accent is a great objection:' and suppose there were many well-bred young ladies among the cono-reojation who had been sent to Eno-land to ^et a good accent, and who said, — We will not have him, for his accent is offensive : I say that this would be a legitimate objection, and in the face of it I would not take the living !" Unhappily for this intended display of chivalry and magnanimity, a friend of his own, — a certain remorseless Mr. Robertson of Ellon, who spoke on the same side of the debate, — assured him there was enough in Lord Aberdeen's bill to keep him out both of Edinburgh and Eigg. " His reverend friend. Dr. M'Leod," said Mr. Robertson, 'Miad put certain extraordinary cases, at least extravagant ones : but in opposition to the judgment of his reverend Mr. Robert- son of Ellon spoils Or. M'Leod's argument. 204 THE TEN YEA.RS' CONFLICT. Ap. XI. friend, lie was not sure but both the cases put by him Ch Mr.^RobCTt- ^gpg comprehended under this bill." Notwithstand count of the bill not sutti cient to in ! ino-, however, that the bill possessed these marvellous ducethe'"' powers, — that there was a virtue in it sufficient to Assemljly to-l niiiirr^i-i i receive it. i^-j^ke tlic rotteu boucs ot a dead M'Donald more than a match for the most eloquent of living M'Leods, — a virtue that would enable a jury of boarding-school misses to pronounce Ossian himself a barbarian, as unfit as his own wild bagpipe to discourse to ears polite, — notwithstanding of all this, and though Mr. Robertson was at much pains to celebrate these won- drous properties of the bill, he could not succeed in persuading the assembly to adopt it, as a new palla- dium for the church of Scotland. The friends of reformation principles " feared the Greeks, even when The Trojan bringing gifts." The ''Trojan horse," though the ciuded7rom housc was assurcd it was the pledoje of lasting peace, the city. '^ ° . , was resolutely excluded. The " utero sonitum ' was not sufficiently muffled. The clang of arms broke too loudly from its hidden recesses upon the ear. Its smooth and specious phraseology could not hide the sword and the shackles of the civil power, — the fines for the presbytery and the gags for the people — which the bill carried in its bosom. Even Dr. Simpson, of Kirknewton, would have none of it. " Come what ^ ^. , may," said he, at the close of an able and armimenta- Dr. Simpson's _ *' _ * sjjcecii. ^jyg speech, " the bill of Lord Aberdeen was one which, in its present form, the church could not accept. He would conclude by saying there might be danger in standing by the principles which they had avowed: but let the peril be what it might in standing to these principles, — the peril would be ten THE REJECTION OF LORD ABERDEEN'S BILL. 205 times greater in receding from them. If tlie church chap. xi. of Scotland is to go down, let her go down maintain- ing, as she now maintains, her great fundamental principles, and she will go down amidst the universal respect of her people, and followed by their best affec- tions. But let her recede from the principles she has Ti.e church / '■ ^ must stand avowed, and she will go down amidst the universal c^pS^a^' contempt of her people. Much has been said of the zard" refuse church of England, and on the want of intelligence on this subject, in the minds of Englishmen: but let them know this, that if the church of Scotland goes down, it is time the church of England were examin- ing her own foundations. It was once remarked by the greatest and the best judge of the field of fight, and not of the field of bloody warfare merely, but of the field of debate — ' The battle of religious estab- lishments is about to be fought, and Scotland is the battle ground.' " The speech was both a good and a '^^iiejjrave brave one, albeit the speaker himself came afterwards ^f paktlrs^ to be of opinion that '* the better part of valour is fnl ""^ ^ discretion." The Rev. Mr. Begg, of Liberton, in a singularly effective speech, reminded the assembly of the con- sequences to which they must make up their mind in the event of their accepting this bill, — they must be ^,_g ^^^ jj_. prepared to intrude ministers against reclaiming con- Jecii. gregations, and that, if need were, at the point of the bayonet. Not, of course, that even their moderate friends would do this wantonly and gratuitously. He read an extract from Dr. Cook's evidence before the patronage committee of the house of commons, 'Svith reference to the parish of Shotts, in which he. Dr. OQ(; THE TEX YEARS' COXFLICT. Chap. XL Cook, Stated tliat he would not have recourse to the ^wouM not assistance of the miUtary, if he could help it. Even Siin.^V Principal Robertson would have o-one as far as that the settle- ... , , i i i "^ mentofnu- adiuission, tor hc in-obabiv Avas not an amateur of msters ir *< '■ • '*"'"*'^^"- dragoons." But then the thing must be done if that bill was to be made law. It had been done before when there was no civil compulsion in the case, and it would become a matter not of simple choice, but of stern necessity, under the act of Lord Aberdeen. " The reverend gentleman thou referred, in illustra- tion, to the case of Jedburgh, in which all the parish- ^i^we^is ioners, except five, were in arms against Mr. Douglas, o^vtcen- ^-^^ presentee, in consequence of whose settlement 2000 left the church in one day; to the case of Biggar, in which it was objected and admitted by the presbytery, that the voice of the presentee could not be heard in the church, notwithstanding which he was settled ; and in the case of Kirkcudbright, in which the presentee was stone blind. In this last case, it was very amusing to see the extent of clerical ingenuity — for it had been specifically stated by the court who sustained the presentation of the blind man, that the objection to his want of sight would have been all very well in popish times, when there were so many hocu^ pociis ceremonies that it was impossible such a pre- sentee could see how to perform them — but that now ^u™'^iouid *^^ objection was totally inapplicable and irrelevant iS.k^tTh'c^e where the gospel was administered in all its simplicity. tiie M'Leixis He had brouo'ht forward these instances for the sake were taken *- the'^bonw of ^f those on the other side of the house, and in the ^^I'SJi"" expectation that they would be brought to look upon and contemplate them in the same way as the wander- THE REJECTION OP LORD ABERDEEN'S BILL. 207 Speech of the ers, referred to by the Rev. Dr. M'Leod, were brouglit to view tlie bones of the McDonalds." On the side of the bill, a speech was delivered by the Rev. John Hunter of the Tron church of Edinburgh, in which an argument was em^^loyed that ^Cv'i'joii sounded well: " We have all heard the objections of favour ot "he many an honest ploughman, and many an humble mechanic, to the discourses to which they have listened from the pulpit, — they were too learned or they were too flowery, they were dry moral harangues which touched not their consciences nor impressed their hearts, they were read from a j^aper, or they were delivered in a cold uninteresting manner. Homely, indeed, may be the language in which the objection is uttered, yet still there may be no difficulty in rendering- it perfectly clear and intelligible to the minds of the members of a presbytery. And if it is stated and sustained by the presbytery, and not called in question by the supreme judicatory of the church, the presentee cannot be settled in the particular parish to which he is presented, and it appears to my mind utterly impos- sible that it can be taken by appeal or otherwise into any civil court upon earth, for all the conditions of this act are fully implemented. The objection is stated, it is put down in writing, it is cognosced and deter- ^^umpsthat mined upon by the presbytery ; but then, it is objected Hon "^the to this act that the presbytery have a power to disre- j.^ "f,,^"^"'- gard the wishes of the people and to proceed to the Kres^Ja induction of the presentee, although a majority of the ofliirpe".^ communicants should enter their dissent ajrainst his o settlement. I am no friend to violent settlements, and happy, indeed, is it when the pastor and his flock 208 'THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XI. entertain a mntual esteem and affection for each otlier, even from the very commencement of their spiritual union. But the apostle Paul tells us a time will come when men will not hear sound doctrine, and a pastor may be rejected by the people just because he is zealous and faithful in his Master's cause ; ready to refute error, to resist sin in every form, and Supposes a excrcise godly discipline. The rulers of the church case of an ni •• i t • i ungodly peo- are called to enqmre mto the reli. 2G, THE REJECTION OF LORD ABERDEEN'S BILL. 225 unhappy circumstance, however, connected with the cuAp.xr. incident, is this, — that Lord Aberdeen himself took a ^alUfoXa course the very opposite of that which the duke dseiyX"' recommended. Disreo^ardino- the ''rule" proposed by timrwhich *_ * _ ■•■■»■ •' the Duke re- tlie church, his lordship framed, without consulting '^^"""'^icied. the church at all, a rule of his own; and then endea- voured to force it down the church's throat. No wonder that the effect was to widen instead of closing the breach, — and that the whole attempt ended in producing, among both parties, increased irritation and disgust. But to return to the general assembly. The other Narrative re- c •' turns to tlie great question of that assembly, in so far as the con- t^'lstra^},- troversy was concerned, was that of the Strathbogie te"l'f "'""'" ministers. This grave case was taken up on Tuesday the 26tli of May. The first step taken in behalf of these ecclesiastical mutineers was a motion made by the Rev. Dr. Anderson of Newburgh, that the mem- bers of commission, by whom the sentence of suspen- sion had been pronounced, should be sisted at the bar as parties in the cause. This extravagance was, however, after a brief discussion abandoned, — and the cause being put in shape for a hearing, Mr. Patrick (now lord) Robertson, appeared as counsel for the accused. These gentlemen had been suspended from the exercise of the functions of their office by a sentence of the commission of the preceding assembly. Com- plaints had been taken against that sentence, and to speech of these complaints Mr. Robertson now addressed him- sd!ur"vi ^ ^ trick Robert- self. The learned counsel took high ground. Not '°"- only did he deny the competency of the commission to pronounce the sentence of which his clients com- 22 G THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xi. plained, but lie denied the competency of tlie assembly itself — nay more, the competency of " any court in her majesty's dominions to pronounce it." His clients had done nothing but obey the law of the land, — and not they, therefore, but the court that condemned Mr. Robert- them, worc the real offenders! Mr. Robertson had a son's ai'gu- STdsimpil very short and simple argument. Apologizing for being " a little elementary," he remarked, with characteristic gravity, that " the supreme power in a state rests somewhere. That j)roposition, I presume, will not be disputed. Where then does it rest ? It necessarily rests on the authority of the sovereign, the lords, and the commons, speaking through their statutes. And how do they speak through their statutes? If the statute be plain it will speak for itself, — if the statute be not plain, the courts of law will interpret the statute." Quod erat demonstrandum — the learned counsel should have added, — for no mathematical demonstration was ever more conclusive or complete. There was, to be sure, a little petitio Hisar-uraentj^rmcipn, as logiciaus call it, — or what amounts, in question, slmplcr pliraso, to a begging of the question, in his mode of putting the case. He took for granted what was precisely the thing to be proved — that the ^'courts of law" had any authority from *^ the sovereign, the lords, and the commons," to ''interpret the statutes" for the church, where matters ecclesiastical were concerned. Aware that this rather obvious defect in his reasoning might suggest itself to the assembly, Mr. Anticipates Robcrtsou, assuuiiug all at once that look and tone tlicolyection ^ ... ment '^°''" ^liich sat SO naturally on this mirth-moving lawyer, exclaimed, *' Oh ! but the general assembly, — Oh! SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 99't but the superior ecclesiastical power — they have exclu- ci.ap. xi. sive and supreme iuriscliction in matters ecclesiastical!" Am^nhj All* 1 • raising a And then, passing from gay to grave, — looking quite '''"=^- serious now, after having laughed the exclusive spiri- tual-jurisdictionists altogether out of countenance, he went on to say — " Granted — but what are matters ecclesiastical ? Is not the question — Whether, under your ecclesiastical jurisdiction, you have or have not, exceeded your power — a civil question?" And so the Quod erat demonstrandum was triumphantly reached ao:ain. The last word — the ''reddinjr stroke" in the fray — was proved to belong to the court of session, and that was enough. But how proved ? By Makes out , O -^ , •' his point by a naked and bold assertion, and by nothing else besides. asSn Is it, indeed, exclusively a civil question this — the determining what is civil and what is ecclesiastical ? It is not easy to see what should make it so, and Mr. Robertson did not even attem^^t to explain. When a church court, with the bible and the confession of faith before it, comes to the conclusion, that baptism, or the Lord's supper, or the ordination of a minister, or the setting of a pastor over a portion of the flock of Christ, is a matter ecclesiastical, and not a matter civil, — is the church court, in so doing, stepping into the province of the courts of law? Is the church ti,o church court forbidden to know a thin"the ing his grand proposition with an argument altogether counsel. worthy of it, " then you supersede the supreme civil power, — you may declare it ecclesiastical to have an increase of your stipends, you may declare it ecclesias- tical that no man shall pay his debts if he is a minister, and that all such matters are ecclesiastical." Be it so, it would be after all a very harmless pastime ; the stipends would not be increased, and if the debts were not paid, the mad ministers who thought, by the mighty magic of their declaration, to transmute the matter civil into the matter ecclesiastical, would have to go If such a case to jail. Tlic folly would cure itself, and this is the did occur, wouid'Juie simple and obvious answer to all such ridiculous sup- positions. If the church court, in determining what belongs to its own jurisdiction, either ignorantly or intentionally trespasses on the civil province, the civil court will, of course, take care to protect its own did occur, thef( wouli itsoir Kobertson's famous supposition SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 229 interests by disallowing to the ecclesiastical sentence cmap.xi any civil effect ; but what if the court of session either ignorantly or intentionally invades the province of the church! ''If," it might be said, adopting the con- '^^;/^f'{^'; verse of Mr. Robertson's supposition, ''if you, the courts of law, have the supreme power to declare every- thing civil that you think proper, then you supersede the supreme ecclesiastical power, — you may declare it civil to regulate public worship, you may declare it civil that no man shall be amenable to a kirk session in the matter of church discipline, especially if he be a member of the college of justice, — and that all such matters are civil ! " Perhaps the learned counsel would not have shrunk from this application of his argument. M'Crie, speaking of the attempts that were made by the civil authorities at Geneva to overbear the exercise THematterin disputeiUus- of church discipline, by Calvin, observes, that " the crsfofcai'^ dispute between him and his opponents turned on this Zt'imiby question: are mmisters obuged to admmister the sacra- ments to those whom they judge unworthy? or, which amounts to the same thing, are the decisions of the church court in such matters to be reviewed and reversed by the civil court?" "And this," adds the historian, "will be found to have been the true state of the question in Scotland, in the greater part of the discussions between the court and the church after the establishment and the reformation."""' It was the true " state of the question" in the ten years' conflict. Mr. Robertson amused himself and the assembly * Life of Knox, Vol. II., p. 3^ foot-note. Chap. XL Objections at of sel, Ludicrous travestie of the Ubel. 230 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. with Ills objections to the sentence of the commission, on points of form. They were so numerous, "he did EThetun- not know where to begin." " As a lawyer," said he, ''if I could have framed a sentence so remote from that which should have been pronounced in point of form, I would say, — ' Having duly considered the matter, Avhich is not before me; having pondered over a petition which I ordered to be served, but which is not served; having superseded consideration and referred the whole matter to another tribunal, and having also well and ripely advised the whole matter, — in respect that there is no accuser and no libel, in respect that I have only a delegated power, and in respect that that delegated power is not conferred on me, and in respect that the body which called me into existence had no power to delegate that power, — ^therefore in respect of these and other considerations, I suspend the seven ministers.' " The assembly laughed heartily at this ludicrous travestie of the facts of the case, and if the place of law and logic could have been supplied by a jest, the witty counsellor would undoubtedly have triumphed. Dr. Cook Dr. Cook, who opened the discussion in the house, S'ssiin: went at once to the point. *'I am perfectly prepared," Commission ^^ Said, " to admit that the mode in which this ques- ed itf'"^'' ' tion must be taken up here is simply, whether the powers. PI • • 1 • 1 X sentence or the commission, which 1 am to oppose, was ultra vires of the commission of assembly." The argument of the reverend doctor, to prove that the commission had exceeded its powers in suspending the seven ministers, was this : The commission is a body created by the general assembly, and not known to SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 231 acts of parliament, — and therefore it " has no civil chap. xi. His novel dis- tinction be- tween the jurisdiction." But the commission had assumed civil jurisdiction, because '' they proceeded to sus- eccTel'iastl pend those seven men, not h'om their ecclesiastical ciaifunc- i ' tions or functions merely, but from their judicial functions *"™''^"- also." ** I doubt the power," he said, " to suspend from the ecclesiastical functions, but I am decidedly of opinion that the commission had no power to sus- pend those clergymen from their judicial functions, from those duties imposed on them by statute." In addition to these alleged radical defects which attached to the commission, and which, in his view, disabled it in any circumstances from pronouncing such a sen- tence as the one complained of, — Dr. Cook further stated two other and more special grounds upon which he held the sentence to be incompetent. First, that be the commission's power what it may, it reaches only, in judicial cases, to those matters which the assembly has remitted to it. He affirmed that the commission objects that tlie Commis- had gone beyond the remit of the assembly, and had gn'"e\?ejona dealt with ^' a state of things not only not referred to theA™em- the commission, but not contemplated by those who that the made the reference." And second, that the commis- Seuuven sion had no authority to take up any case referred to remitten.> . , , „ . . it> except at it except at the *' stated meetings of commission- it**'t='ted meetin" whereas the sentence had been pronounced, not at a stated, but at a special meeting. This was the argu- ment on the strength of which Dr. Cook called on the assembly to find that, in pronouncing the sentence of suspension against the seven Strathbogie ministers, " the commission have acted idtra vires in exceeding the powers granted by the assembly, — reverse and 232 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XI. rescuid tlie said sentence, and the whole proceedings connected therewith, declaring them to be null and void." ^aufcTon ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^' ^^^^ attempted to carry his point standiujof at the expense of destroying the legal standing of the LV "'"'""' commission, serves only to show to what extremes partizan strife will carry men. The commission had existed and had exercised the very powers, now for the first time called in question, for upwards of a cen- tury. The very year before, the assembly had unani- mously approved a sentence of the commission, not suspending merely but de230sing a minister. There was not a word then of Dr. Cook's newly discovered distinction between the ecclesiastical and judicial functions of a minister; as if ministers got their authority to jDreach and dispense the sacraments from the church, — but their authority to judge, that is, to rule the house of God, from " statute law!" He was well reminded that his distinguished predecessor in the leadership of the moderate party. Principal Robert- son, knew nothing of this modern scruple about the powers of the commission. Mr. Begg, who recalled Eev.Mr. Dr. Cook's attcutiou to this fact, quoted Principal f)?"^ook"o Robertson's well known ** reasons of dissent" against Principal . . 1 1 p ^ • 1 T iioi.eitson the commission of assembly ot 1/62, in the Inver- 5ro!ethc keithing case. There had been disobedience in that the comUs- case too, by a presbytery to the orders of their eccle- sion in rases J i. ^ j t-»«'i ^ ' ^ C like the pre- gij^g^ical supcHors, — aud the Principal complained ot the commission for not punishing that disobedience. '' There never," said Mr. Begg, " was a more com- plete contrast between two cases. It was a commis- sion on both occasions that decided ; but on the one SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 233 occasion the commission had decided in favour of the chap.xi. peo])le ; and on the other a dissent was taken from '^''%"'°'''="^^ i i ' party seem their judgment, because they did not inflict censure tL°powlrof on ecclesiastical persons for the purpose of compellinsr sion, because ^ ^ ^ i & it was now them to settle unacceptable presentees. The essence inftefe of the whole lay there. A new idea has been dis- Ui^peopfe. covered by the moderate party in regard to the power of the commission : and that grand discovery had pro- bably been made, because unfortunately the commis- sion now had shielded the people against a violent intrusion." With regard to the more relevant objection, that the commission had gone beyond the remit of the assembly, it would have been decisive had it only been true. But the commission had not gone beyond the remit of the assembly. Dr. Anderson of New- i>r. Andcr-ou '' of New- burgh, who made by much the ablest speech against HhatfLe the sentence of the commission, admitted that ** he hadnor'"" had not the fragment remaining within him of a doubt ^^^ >"'=n"t. that the assembly delegated to the commission the whole case of Marnoch, to be cognosced, determined upon, and disposed of, not merely according to the remit, but in terms of the veto-act;" in short, ''to do every or any one thing in the matter they may choose. He had no doubt that all these things were intended." It is true. Dr. Anderson held, notwith- standing, that the assembly did not and could not know, at the time the remit was made, that thino-s were to turn out as they had done. They did not know the Strathbogie ministers were to refuse obedi- ence to the orders of the church; and, therefore, he argued, the remit could not have contemplated a sen- 234 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cgAP. SI. tence like that which had been actually pronounced. ^lan^a^n'sweVl ^^ uot wondcr," said Dr. P. M'Farlan, speaking derson."^'" to this poiut, '' that it entered not into the mind of the assembly; for who was to suppose that any seven ministers in the church would refuse to do what the assembly, in the exercise of its lawful authority, com- manded them? And not only that, but that they would actually go before the court of session, and prefer obedience to the civil court to obedience to their own ecclesiastical court." But what then ? The commission had received instructions and authority to do everything that might be necessary to prevent the intrusion of Mr. Edwards into the parish of Marnoch — and the suspension of the seven ministers turned out to be the only means of hindering that wrong. As for the last objection of Dr. Cook, — that the commission had no authority to convene or act except at the usual stated times of meeting, — it was enough to point, in reply to it, as Dr. M'Farlan did, to the very terms of the commission's annual appoint- ment; in which, while stated times are specified, it is ^0 DrS's farther added, that they shall meet " oftener, when thiuir* and where they shall think fit and convenient."'-' jmissiou ^^.^^^ ^ lengthened discussion, the amendment of the power ex- " ^ _ ed^meetfntt' procurator was carried against the motion of Dr. The decision. Cook by a majority of 84: the numbers being 227 to 143. The amendment was in these words — " That - the assembly, having heard counsel in this case, find that the commission did not exceed its j^owers; dismiss the complaint and appeal, and find and declare * Vide Presb. Rev., Vol. XIIT., p. 137. SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 235 that tlie seven ministers in tlie presbytery of Strath- chap.xi. bogie have been duly suspended, in terms of the sentence of the commission/' This decision did, of course, nothin J Conirais- coiirts continue to assume the liberty they have taken iSirned upon themselves, in too many instances, of disputing and nit to'^ow disoheyiny the decisions of their superiors. It is more ^^^^^^^^ than high time to think of putting a stop to this grow- ecciesTalti!*'^ ing evil, otherwise, such anarchy and confusion will be riors. introduced into the church, as will inevitably not only break it in pieces amongst ourselves, but make us likewise the scorn and derision of our enemies, — for, believe me, subordination is the link of society, with- out which there can be no order or afovernment." Mr. Dunlop read also extracts from the celebrated manifesto, or exposition of church principles issued by the moderate party, to which the same Inverkeith- ing case gave birth. The commission of assembly Mr, Duniop ii'i TT "IT- refers to tlie Jiad m that case, as already noticed, declined to <^'"^°"\ , ' J ' mauitesto of punish a refractory presbytery. The manifesto in roSoh. question, in the preparation of which Principal Robertson had the chief hand, inveighed against that too tolerant commission as guilty of betraying the very first principles of all government, whether civil or ecclesiastical. ** They," said this famous docu- ment, **who maintain that such disobedience deserves no censure, maintain, in effect, that there should be no such thing as government and order, — they deny those first principles by which men are united in 240 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chaf. XI. society, and endeavour to establish such maxims as ^the R^beK- "w^l^ justify not oufy liccutiousness in ecclesiastical, but mi'ilILto. disorder and rebellion in civil government. And, therefore, as the reverend commission have, by this sentence, declared, that disobedience to the supreme judicature of the church neither infers guilt nor deserves censure, — as they have surrendered a right essential to the nature and subsistence of every society, — as they have, so far as lay in them, betrayed the privileges and deserted the order of the constitution; we could not have acted a faithful part to the church nor a safe one to ourselves, unless we had dissented from this sentence ; and craved liberty to represent to the venerable assembly that this deed appears to us to be manifestly beyond the powers of a commission/' In other words, the The comrais- moderate party of 1752 held it to be beyond the from pul powers of a commission to refrain from punishing a obeS''"' presbytery that refused to give effect to a sentence of and* the ^' the general assembly. Whereas it was the complaint moderate O J i ^ demnea"?t. ^f tlic modcratc party of 1840 that the commission condenuTit had gouc bcyoud its powers when it did punish a far for punish- ptit t i c ^ mi ingafar grosscr act of disobcdicnce than that of 1752. ihe grosser act O touce'""" offence of the presbytery in 1752 was that of declining to carry into effect a particular sentence of the assem- bly. The offence under discussion in 1840 was that of not only declining to do the thing the assembly had ordered, but that of doing ultroneously the thing which the assembly had forbidden. It was not a case of passive resistance, merely, to the authority of the supreme ecclesiastical court, — but a case of active and resolute rebellion. Had the presl)ytery of Strathbogie SUSPENSION OP THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 241 gone no farther than the presbytery of Diinferniline, — cuap.xi. had they simply stood still and done nothing, — no act of suspension would have gone forth against them. It was not alone, however, the contumacy of the seven brethren with which the Assembly had now to deal. There were other and later proceedino;s of theirs Aggravations i- o jn the case by which that original offence had been entirely out- mi"is'era!'° done. They had attempted to interrupt, by bring- ing in the arm of the civil power, the course of ecclesiastical discipline and the administration of the ordinances of the gospel. They had violated that great cardinal doctrine of the church's constitution, — that, " The Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government in the hands of church officers, distinct from the civil magis- trate," and that " to these officers the keys of the king- dom of heaven are committed." This they had done by recognizing in the civil court a power to set aside the spiritual censures of the church, and to confer a title to exercise the spiritual functions of the ministry. Notwithstanding of all this, Mr. Dunlop said he would not propose now to proceed at once to libel these parties for their offence. He wished the court to do nothing rashly; but that the proceedings of the assembly should be in such a form as should bring out the true character of what had been done; and it could not be forgotten that they were not proceeding to punish a contempt of their own authority, but a ji^. Duniop contempt of the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, timttifey •'■ _ "^ , should deal But before pronouncing any sentence at all, he desired ^';jije\i'j^^ to deal once more with these unhappy men. The h"fo're"ro. , , . , . 1 1 • 1 ccedmg to commission had appointed a committee to deal with ubd. 242 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XI. tlieiii, — a comiiiittee of most admirable and venerated Refers to the ^^gn. — wlio had abstained from anyone act that could conference ' ^ heeuSed croatG pTCJudice or hesitation on the part of these liefore, and , • l^ c "TV to the way scvon gentlemen to engage in the comerence, — Dv. in which it O o ^ -» r n was treated. Q-orfjon, tho proscnt moderator, and Mr. Bruce. These three, in the dead of winter, proceeded to Aberdeen to hold a conference with their misguided brethren. They had communicated with them before- hand, but were not made aware that they would not be met. They were allowed to go north : and did these ministers see these venerable men face to face ? They sent an agent. They asked if the deputation had any more powers than those which they knew had been conferred by the commission ; and if the deputa- tion could repone them, — though they knew they could be reponed only by the presbytery or by the general assembly. They knew, moreover, that whenever they declared their readiness to obey the church, that moment their sentence would fall. An answer being returned, of course, that the deputation had no power but from the sentence of the commission, — instead of meeting them face to face as brother ministers of the gospel, the suspended ministers sent them a paper drawn up several days before the reverend deputation had left Edinburgh, giving reasons why they would hold no conference. They refused to listen to the counsels of christian piety and wisdom." ue would ** But though they had refused such conference," noS." ' continued Mr. Dunlop, *' still the church ought to standing, i /v» h'roffcreT''' ^^^^^® ^1^^ effort more, not from any consideration as "gai" ^Q \^Qyf their proceedings might be viewed elsewhere, but for the sake of these men themselves. And what SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 243 lie now proposed was, that in respect of the proceed- chap. xi. ings of these parties in violating the orders of the '^tur'swd commission, and of the general assembly, with regard cenSie. to the settlement of Mr. Edwards, this assembly do mitteVaT' •' pointed to find that they are censurable; and with regard to the ttelu"'' other matters brought up, — that they are liable to be proceeded against according to the laws of the church, — but that before pronouncing any sentence and deter- mining the nature of that sentence, a commission of this house shall be appointed to deal with these men, and report to a subsequent diet of this assembly." In moving an amendment to the motion of Mr. Dunlop, Dr. Cook admitted that " if we had merely an ecclesiastical question to deal with, these ministers would be censurable for not obeying their ecclesiastical superiors." " But," said he, " there is one element Dr.cook op. which is the peculiar and distinoruishino; characteristic motion,— ^ ^ . 'i'^ defence of this case, — which takes it out of the whole ana- "ended'''" logical reasoning of the honourable gentleman, — and it is on that j^oint that we ground our opinion regarding it." This ** one element " was " an interposition ah extra, — an interposition by the highest judicatory of the country,- — a declaration that the presbytery, acting as a court of the established church of the country, is bound and astricted to act in a particular manner with regard to what this very sentence affirmed to be a civil matter." The fallacy of an argument lies often in The fallacy JO of Ins argii- the use of a particular phrase. Dr. Cook and his """''■ friends were constantly in the habit of describing the sentence of the house of lords in the Auchterarder case, as the sentence of the *' highest judicatory of the land." It was the sentence of the highest judicatory it q2 244 THE TEN YE.VRS' CONFLICT, Chap. XL He assumes the point to be proved. The civil courts liad not issued any order o the seven ministers. Dr. Cook's answer to this. His defence of their ap- plication to tlie civil courts. is true, in so far as the civil matters belonging to that case were concerned. But the whole question now in dispute was this — whether that judicatory had any jurisdiction at all, either supreme or subordinate, in the spiritual matters which that case involved. In so far as it had assumed jurisdiction in these spiritual matters, the ground taken by the church was this — that not only was it not the highest competent judi- catory in the land, but that it was not a competent judicatory at all. In point of fact, that ''highest judi- catory" had never as yet gone further than to pro- nounce an abstract general doctrine, — it had issued no order upon the presbytery of Strathbogie, requiring them to " receive and admit" Mr. Edwards, or even " to take him upon trials." In reference to the haste and zeal of the seven brethren in proclaiming, in these circumstances, their determination to take their orders from the courts of law, and to set the orders of the church at nought. Dr. Cook uro^ed this in their defence — that the simple declaration of the law was enough, and that as '* good and dutiful subjects of the realm," they were bound not to wait till an order for its appli- cation in their particular case should be issued. And finally, in vindication of their conduct in appealing to the court of session to protect them against the spiri- tual censures of the church. Dr. Cook offered this singular defence : — '* How did they aj^ply to the court of session ? They said that the commission had pro- nounced a sentence of suspension, which sentence the presbytery were warranted by the church not to obey till it should be confirmed by the church itself: and that they came to the court of session just because their SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGTE MINISTERS. 245 spiritual superiors would not receive tliem at all. chap. xi. The suspension was a suspension from their status as ministers, — not only ecclesiastical but judicial. They held that status by the law of the land." If this argu- Hisargument •' '-' would prove ment was good for anything, it was good for a great caseofsl"/ deal more than the vindication of the Strathboo-ie Seposluou"^ T 11 11 • 1' • • the Civil mniisters. It would equally vmdicate any minister ^Xldto suspended or deposed for heresy or immorality, in >"^'='^'"''- arresting the church's spiritual sentence by the help of the civil arm, — and in preventing the church from providing for the spiritual oversight of the flock which he had been misleading by his false doctrine, or scan- dalizing and corrupting by his profligacy. In a word, the aro;ument went the whole lensfth of the erastian theory, — by referring the ultimate authority, in all questions of church government, to the civil jDOwer. The amendment of Dr. Cook contained, as might be anticipated, from such a line of argument, a full exoneration of the Strathbogie ministers. It proposed that, " as the said sentence was pronounced on these ministers for having conscientiously yielded obedience to the positive instructions of the supreme civil court, motion to 1 • •! acquit the in what was stated by these courts to be a civil matter, fvenmims- • i i • • • • appointed to to coufcr With the seven ministers, gave m its report. confer witli ' O J- minutera. Aloiig witli it tlicrc was laid, by the committee, on the table of the assembly, a statement, signed by the seven SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 253 ministers, in which they avow, that '' ihej deem chap.xi. themselves specially bound, alike by their oaths of allegiance and by their duty as subjects, and as minis- ters of the established church, having right to the offices of ministers of parishes under the law of the land, to give due effect and obedience to the decree of the supreme civil court pronounced against them." And further, in reference to their past conduct, in- stead of tendering any apology, they distinctly declare that, '^for having taken that course they feel it impos- sible for them conscientiously to acknowledge that they have justly become the objects of censure by the church." The convener of the committee, the Rev. statement of ' Ur. M'Far- Dr. M'Farlan, of Greenock, referring to these senti- t^ene^^ ""'" ments and purposes of the suspended ministers, observed, that it was with the deepest pain he announced them to the general assembly. He had fondly hoped at the first meeting of the committee with these ministers to have " succeeded in obtaining from them an expression of regret for the course they had pursued, and of their willingness to submit them- selves to the authority of the church. "' "' - He was grieved to say that his anticipations had been disappointed, and he felt the utmost pain in being compelled, in the discharge of his duty, to propose — that the sentence of suspension should be continued ; that they should be cited personally to appear before j^suut up to the commission in Aunjust, and if they then continued Kuspen- " ^ ^ '' sion be con- contumacious, and refused submission to the church |j;!,""'',g^y2e courts, that they should be served with a libel for that ule'commis- contumacy, and that the commission should proceed persist in , tlic'r contu- until the case was ripe for the next general assembly." '^'*''^- 254 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xi. He would also appoint the commission in August next, — in tlie event of their submitting, — to remove the sentence of suspension, and to repone them in the exercise of all their functions as ministers of the church ''Jroposed^the of Scotlaud. Thc course thus recommended was consistent mauifestlv the only one consistent with the mainten- withthe '' / . . ^'ieoTa ^iice of a governing authority m the church. The government ^^^^ ^f ^j^g churcli had bceii deliberately violated, — the orders of the general assembly and of its commis- sion had been set at nought, — and the avowal was now made in the very face of the supreme ecclesiastical court, of a resolution to persist in maintaining the same attitude of disobedience and defiance. In opposing the motion of Dr. M'Farlan, Dr. Cook, in common with all the others who followed him on the same side, studiously shunned the real question in dispute. That question was — Does the constitution of the church, as ratified by law, empower the civil courts to prescribe their duty to church courts, in the examina- tion and admission of ministers, and to coerce them in the performance of these proj)er ecclesiastical functions ? Confounding the courts of law with the nr. Cook's supreme power of the state. Dr. Cook assumed that murepre""' tlic dccisioii of the coui'ts of law, upon this point, was true ^tate of the dccisioii of the state: that because these courts the question. had arrogated to themselves a jurisdiction in these matters, the jurisdiction was to be held as legally and constitutionally theirs : and hence that by the very terms of her establishment the church was bound to acknowledge it. But Dr. Cook could not be ignorant that this was to take for granted the very thing which the assembly emphatically denied. He SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 255 could not but be aware that every individual of the chap. xr. majority conceded to the state, as readily and as fully as their opponents in this great controversy, the right to declare what were the conditions on which it had con- ferred on the church the immunities of her civil estab- lishment, — to require either that these conditions should be strictly observed, or that the immunities of the establishment should be surrendered into the hands of the state again ; but he also knew that, in common with a large and influential minority of the civil judges themselves, the majority of the assembly maintained, that the state had not given to the civil courts that peculiar jurisdiction which they had assumed and were now attempting to enforce; and hence, that in resisting that jurisdiction the assembly claimed to be standing not simply on scriptural, but also on strictly legal and constitutional ground. For Dr. Cook, therefore, to insinuate, as he ventured to do, that the Evtravao-ance general assembly were setting up claims as extrava- accusauwu.' gant and intolerable as those of the ''anabaptists of the reformation and of the fifth monarchy men of the great rebellion," was merely to substitute injurious and calumnious epithets in the room of fair and manly discussion. The debate was long and animated, but as the ground which it traversed was in all essential re- spects the same with that which had been already gone over in the preceding debates, both in the commission and in the assembly, any further details appear to be unnecessary. The amendment of Dr. Cook proposed to remove the sentence of suspension ; another amend- ment, proposed by Dr. Simpson, recommended that it should be removed only in so far as ministerial and 256 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. SI. pastoral functions were concerned, but continued as regarded those functions which were administrative and judicial. This second amendment, being put against that of Dr. Cook, was lost upon a division by ^i'usjension' 32 to 50. A fiual vote was then taken as between by 166 to Dr. Cook's amendment and the orisfinal motion of Dr. 102. C> ^ M'Farlan, when the latter was carried by a majority of 64 — the numbers being 166 to 102. In proportion to the number of members present upon this occasion, the majority now named was as large as in either of the two former divisions on this important case. The firm and unflinching attitude which throughout all these anxious and agitating debates the assembly preserved, was highly creditable to its courage and faithfulness. The temptations to give way were many and strong, and had fear or self-interest swayed the counsels of the non-intrusionists, these temptations would undoubtedly have prevailed. Nothing, how- ever, in the progress of this momentous controversy Calm ponsis- was uiorc marked or memorable than the calm consis- ArsemV " tency with which, in the face of constantly increasing- dangers, the church kept her ground. Realizing from the very first the magnitude of those principles upon which the controversy turned, and feeling herself to be " set for their defence,'' as often, in her past history, she had been before, she experienced the faithfulness of that scripture promise, " as thy days, so shall thy strength be." It was at once a pleasing and a strik- ing illustration of the dignified composure with which the assembly was enabled to meet the grave emer- gency which had arisen, that in the midst of this life and death struggle the whole ordinary business of the SUSPENSION OF THE STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 257 cliurch was carried on with as much exactness and uhap.xi. regularity as in the cahnest period of her history. Instead of losincr herself in the heat and hurry of this '^^'^ ordiuary O J affim-s of tlie exciting conflict, and neglecting everything else in emrfuiiy order to maintain it, the records of the assembly of " "" 1840 will show, that never at any former time were the a'l'eat educational and evanijelistic schemes of the church more vigorously prosecuted, or her ordinary discipline administered with a wiser or a firmer hand. History tells of a Massena writing a dispatch to the dictation of Napoleon during the siege of Toulon, and when a cannon ball, which struck the ground at his f«3et, sent a shower of dust over the drum -head on which he wrote, — shaking the paper and quietly remarking, "we shall need no sand this time." It tidls of a Nelson that, when preparing to seal his famous letter to the Crown Prince of Denmark at the battle of Copenhagen, a shot passing through the cabin cut the officer who was holdino; the light in two, — and when one of the bystanders thinking, not unna- turally in such circumstances, the sooner the affair was ended the better, hastily exclaimed, "here is a wafer," — the great naval hero, without a feature dis- composed or a nerve shaken, answered, with a placid smile, " no, no, bring another light, — we must not seem to be in a hurry just now," and sealed the document with all the calmness and precision of a secretary of state closing a dispatch in Downing-street. Readin^r such incidents, we regard with astonishment and admiration the coolness and self-possession these men displayed; and yet, after all, it was pefhaps a bravery as true and of a still nobler kind which — in the midst 258 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. of the harassing anxieties and accumulating hazards of the church's conflict — enabled those who had the direction of her affairs to attend to the minutest concerns, and to transact all the ordinary business of the church with as much equanimity and deliberation as if they had had nothing else to think of or to do. The Lord was addinof fortitude to faith, and makinoj His servants to know that He had not said in vain, ^'lo! I am with you always, even to the end of the world !" CHAP. XII. THE MODERATE LEAGUE, &C. By tlieir reasons of dissent, noticed in tliG preceding chap.xu. cliai^ter, the ffreat bnlk of the moderate party had now Thomodciau L ' n i « party iclcu- bonnd themselves up in the same bundle with the sdve^witii rebellious ministers of Strathbogie. The erastianism bisiemhiil which Dr. Cook and his friends disclaimed at the out- set of the controversy, — and which for some years thereafter they were at pains to mask under a system of obscure and ambiguous phraseology — was now openly and unhesitatingly, and in all its nakedness avowed. They no longer indulged in professions of zeal for the spiritual independence of the church. Such language was too glaringly in contradiction to the principles they had now sanctioned, and to the position they had assumed, — to admit of its being any longer employed. When the pressure of their oppon- ents'argument tempted, at times, some member of the party, less discreet than valiant, still to venture upon the use of the old standard expressions upon the sub- ject,— the sense of the ridiculous which it called up in the audience was usually so prompt and unequivocal in its manifestations, as to bring the bravado to an untimely end. By adopting the civil supremacy doc- 'pdncSTo trine of the Dean of Faculty and the courts of law, uudVom'^' *' . mittedthein- they had committed themselves to a principle which ^,';';;*'o^;;=^ no ingenuity of argument, nor subtlety of speech, could harmonize with the notion of an independent jurisdic- tion in any matters whatever, as belonging to the 260 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XII. cliurch. TliG liiie of demarcation upon this funda- mental question between them and the evangelical majority, — a line which, in the earlier stages of the hi the earlier controversy, seemed sometimes very nearly to disap- stii<;es of tlie -^ . Cook spoke pear, as when Dr. Cook, almost in the tones of an old iiTetnia covenanter, spoke of unfurling the banner of indepen- dence, and marching forth under it, to face any amount of hardship or persecution which it might cost to uphold it, — that line had now widened and deepened into an impassable gulph. It had at length become painfully manifest, that two totally different and alto- gether irreconcilable theories of the constitution of the church as a national establishment, lay at the root of this controversy. Standing on the sacred ground of Christ's sole Headship and supremacy as the church's only King and Lord, — a ground so broadly laid down in her standards, and so resolutely maintained in her ^ilviintahTed hlstory — a ground watered by the blood of her martyrs, As/embiy. and hallowed by their memories : — standing on that sacred ground, the evangelical majority affirmed, that in the exercise of her spiritual functions the church was not at liberty to take her orders from the temporal courts, and that the church's actual union with the state proceeded upon a full recognition of her right of self-government. They held that not only had the state ratified that right, — but ratified it as belonging to the church jure divino. On the other hand, without denying in so many words, the doctrine of Christ's sole Headship over the church, and the consequent obligation of church rulers to be guided in all matters spiritual by His word and will alone, — a doctrine which could not be denied without contradict- IE MODERATE LEAGUE. 2G1 iiig the clmrcli's standards, and iiiciuTingj the charge chap. xn. of heresy — the moderate minority of the assembly had \'^^|™,;'!"^|,g gradually slid into the assumption, that because of '"'"""^y- her union with the state, the church was bound to leave it to the courts of law to determine for her, how far the doctrine of Christ's Headship extended, and to what cases it applied. They made no attempt, indeed, to reconcile that notion either with scri|)ture and the confession of faith, on the one hand, or with the constitution and history of the church, on the other. But because the civil courts had pronounced that so it was, — the moderate party held this to be prohatio probata of the fact, — and without thinking it at all necessary to establish it by either evidence or argument, they reasoned upon it as if it had been a first principle. Whatever appeared to the court A session " to affect civil rights," passed immediately, according to this view, from the jurisdiction of the spiritual to that of the temporal courts : the church ceased to be the final jndge concerning it: from that moment it became her duty to dispose of it, not at all according to what she might ju'lge to be the mind of Christ, as interpreted by her standards and embodied in her laws, — but absolutely and exclusively according to the dictation of the civil tribunal. This they declared to be " the law of the land," — and hence their frequent and offensive charoces of disloyalty and i'''? charges 1 O J ./ ot rebellion. rebellion against those who presumed to be of another mind, and who still understood the law of the land upon that subject in the same sense in which the courts of law themselves had understood and applied it, from the revolution settlement till 1838. 262 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cmai'.xh. The tone thus taken by the moderate party in the church became sensibly louder and firmer from tlie period of the rejection of Lord Aberdeen's bill. Sup- cuiises which ported, as they now felt themselves to be, by the miuority chiefs of that political party to .which Lord Aberdeen denurpro- bclouged, aud to which everything indicated that claiminj; and n ^ ^ acting upon thc a'ovemment oi the country was very soon to be llicireras- ~ ^ j tiaii views, transferred, they were not indisposed to have pushed the conflict to extremities at once. This state of mind was still further strengthened by a conversation which took place, in the course of the same summer, in the house of commons. Up till this time. Sir E/obert Peel had given no public expression of his sentiments on the merits of the Scotch church contro- versy. Though it was generally understood that Lord Aberdeen's whole proceedings had been taken with the full concurrence of the heads of the conservative party, the silence Sir Robert Peel had hitherto preserved on the great questions in dispute, left it in some uncer- tainty how far he was prepared to go in condemning the attitude towards the courts of law which the general assembly had assumed. That uncertainty, to whatever extent it had existed, was dissipated at once. The speech of ^y a speccli which he delivered on the 27tli of July, jvei iuVuiy, on the occasion of the house of commons voting a certain sum of money for the building of a new hall for the general assembly. After paying some compli- ments to the church of Scotland, as " one of the most important and useful instruments in propagating true religion," he went on to express his regret '' that a portion of that church had placed itself in opposition (to the law) on a question of civil right. The su])remc Sir Robert eel accuses the Cliurrh THE MODERATE LEAGUE. 203 tribunal of Scotland had given its decision, and an appeal had been made to the house of lords. Upon a question which involved the interpretation of a statute, there could be no authority to act in defiance of a statute law of this country so interpreted." "' "' "* " He regretted that the church had come to a deter- ^"j; mination, not only to disregard the decision of the ofsStiami ofopiwsiiig house of lords, but to place a contrary niterpretation on the uw. it, and that they had not felt the pre-eminent obligation of setting an example to all the subjects of her majesty in Scotland, of paying implicit deference to the law after it had been so interpreted." Upon this alto- gether erroneous view of the case, this distinguished statesman felt himself at liberty to assume what it would have been reasonable to make at least some show of attempting to prove — that the church of Scot- land was in actual rebellion against the law of the land. " The best evidence," he said, " which he could oflPer to the church of Scotland of his regard and respect for it, was to take this opportunity of incul- cating upon its authorities a strict obedience to the law: and above all, to express a hope, that the obliga- ^thecimrch! tions imposed upon them would induce them to set an Xnsive example to those in communion with that church, by their own acts of deference and obedience to that law, as laid down by the constitutional authorities of the country." This attempt, made with such oracular authority, to hold up a christian church as a rebel against the law, and as, by its example, a mover of sedition among the people, was indeed nothing new. The apostles of our Lord were often met with the same charge. That it should have been made at that irgewhich it embodied. 264 'THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap, xtt. momeiit, however, in the Britisli parliament, and by- one occnpying so influential a position there, was Tlieniiscliiev- 011? encour- tims'gileu much to be reo-retted, — fitted, as it was, so directly those wli" '~ '' were defy the imt ritv of tlie Cluireh. Mr. Vox Maule's speech ii\ reply to Sir Robert Peel 'fvi^ag and so powerfully to encourage that schism which the Strathbogie ministers had begun, and the prosecution of which was so certain to load to the ultimate dis- memberment of the national church. The attack was not unanswered. It called up one whose enlightened and unflinching advocacy of the great scripture prin- ciples and constitutional prerogatives for which the church was contending, has earned for him the grati- tude and esteem of all who venerate the work of the Scottish reformers, and who know how to appreciate that integrity and manly firmness of character, which fears not to avow honest convictions, and to defend them wherever they may be assailed. It is told in scripture, to the honour of Onesiphorus, that even at Rome he was not ashamed of Paul's chain. It will be told, in the ecclesiastical history of his country, to the honour of Mr. Fox Maule, that he was not ashamed to identify himself, even in the house of commons, with the calumniated church of Scotland. *'If," said he, replying to Sir Robert Peel, " tliat church had set itself up against the law of the land in matters of civil right, he would be the last man to stand up in its defence. But the general assembly of the church of Scotland had over and over again declared, that so far as civil rights were concerned, it would bow impli- citly to the decisions of the law; but so closely was the possession of benefices bound together with induction to the cure of souls, that it was scarcely possible for those not acquainted with the constitution of the church THE MODERATE LEAGUE. 2G5 of Scotland to draw a line of demarcation between chap.xii. these two rights. But to those who knew the consti- ^ieuvcTu the tiition of the church, the line was clear and distinct ; the c^eof'^ and to them it was apparent that all the church and the general assembly had done was to say, — that while on the one hand they obeyed the law as to benefices, — still, they owed a duty to a higher authority than man, wlien they inducted to any portion of their church an individual who had a cure of souls." Mr. Maule was followed, on the same side, by a gentleman to whom the church, throughout her whole controversy, stood deeply indebted. That gentleman was Mr. Rutherford, the lord advocate of Scotland. Throwing the shield of his hio;h leoal office, as well as of his ^reat professional learning, over the misrepresented and vilified church, he repelled, with energy and decision, the offensive accusations of Sir Robert Peel. '' Heel's Lord Ailvocate regretted to hear the church of Scotland called rebel- l^leuthf lious; and if honourable orentlemen took the trouble iiSiertFeei " ^ ^ had brought to study the question with a little more attention, they cltrct"'^ would perhaps pause before resorting to the use of words implying such heavy censure. There was a broad distinction, the house would remember, between civil jurisdiction and spiritual jurisdiction. The church of Scotland had never denied the jurisdiction of the civil courts in matters civil; but then there came another question — Was the house prepared to sanc- tion the authority of the civil courts to the extent of obliging the presbyterian church to receive into holy orders any presentee that might be offered by the patrons ? No such power existed in respect to the church of EnHand, — and would the house sanction 266 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. x]i. its exei'cise as regarded the clmrcli of Scotland ? "' "^ "■ In England ordination preceded presenta- tion; in Scotland both might be said to be done at once, and almost by the same act. In Scotland a patron chose a person not ordained; and the question, M.^'ciauTiof therefore, was whether the civil court should have the tlie civil tomterfoe powcr to force that presentee, not into possession of rituiuct'of' the temporalities, but into an office with the cure of souls. These were the real differences as to the two churches ; and he could assure the house that the decision in the Auchterarder case did not go nearly to the extent of forcing the presentee into holy orders ; and he was sure that the learned judges who had given that decision would be the last persons in the world to justify such a step." Emphatic and im^^ortant as was this repudiation of the charjxes brouo;ht ao-ainst the church, the fact still remained, that the chief of that great political party that was already on the eve of accession to power, had committed himself in the Itice of the country to opinions that bound him, in all consistency, to support the moderate party in the resistance they were now oflering to the authority of their ecclesiastical superiors. ^andloneof Morcovcr, as the whig leaders — though they allowed chkw''^ their subordinates to speak in support of the church in the state — wcrc tlieniselvcs studiously silent, the effect of this fatted to en- •' stSngu? parliamentary discussion was, undoubtedly, to render the recusant ministers of Strathbogie, and those who supported them, more resolute in their purpose to disregard and defy the censures of the church. Already, indeed, an association had been secretly formed — under the auspices of Dr. Cook and other THE MODERATE LEAGUE. 267 prominent members of the more extreme section of chap. xir. the moderate party — with a view to band together the dissentients of the late general assembly in a combined opposition to its authority. A letter was prepared, dated, Edinburgh, 1st July, 1840, and signed by Dr. ''I'^i^'oT''" Cook, and others, — containing a copy of this not very isio."^' ** solemn league and covenant" of moderatism. The document in question,'"" to the great discomfort of its * "We whose names are hereto adhibited, being ministers, elders, and members of the estabhshed church of Scotland, concur in the follow- ing resolutions : — "1st, That in the present perilous situation of our church, occasioned or increased by the proceedings of the last general assembly, it becomes necessary for the ministers, elders, and other members of the establish- ment, cordially to unite and co-operate for mutual support and defence against the consequences which may result from those proceedings, and wliich may most seriously affect us both collectively and as individuals. " 2d, That a large minority of the members of the late general assem- bl}^ having entered their dissents from the above specified proceedings, and put on record the reasons for so doing, the subscribers hereby resolve to adopt these reasons as the basis of the association thus formed for the defence of the constitution of the church, and of its miuisters and members. "3d, That for the accomplishment of the object in view, a correspon- dence shall be immediately opened with all the dissentients in last general assembly, and other friends of the church in every synod, inviting them to join in promoting and securing the important purposes for which the association is instituted. " 4th, That a general meeting of those who agree to tliese resolutions shall be held at Edinburgh on the 12th day of August next, at nine o'clock, A.M., for maturing the plans of the association, and for adopting such resolutions as may then be deemed requisite. " 5th, That previously to the said meeting, each subscriber shall con- tribute one pound, at least, to be applied as the subscribers tiien shall appoint; — the subscriptions to be transmitted to II. D. Hill, Esq., W.S., George Street, Edinburgh. (Signed) Geouge Cook and oihcrs." 2(Jg THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. sii. autliors, fell prematurely into the hands of those from whom it was meant to be concealed, — at least, until the plot should have been ripe for execution. The The object of iuteution of the parties concerned seems evidently to tliia intended ^ , ,> oi i i • contedera- };iave bccn to liavc turned the mutiny ot IStrathbogie into a general insurrection, and in this way to have so multiplied the number of the rebels against ecclesias- tical authority as to have made the exercise of church discipline practically impossible. The 12th of August was fixed for the meetinof of the secret conclave in which the plans of the confederates were to be finally arranged, and the same day that sends the sportsman to the hills was to have witnessed the springing of the mine by which moderatism was to have blown spiritual independence and non-intrusion into the air. The time, however, had not yet come — nor was this destined to be the way — in which the drama of this eventful con- flict was to be finally wound up. The discovery of the secret circular, and the consequent revelation of the intended movement, led on the instant to the adoption of measures on the other side so energetic and decided as to have led to the abandonment of the whole design. One combination could be effectually counteracted only by another; an '' engagement" was accordingly drawn up, after full and prayerful delibera- tion on the apparently approaching crisis, in the following terms: — The engage. '^Whercas it is the bounden duty of those who are entrusted by the Lord Jesus with the ruling of His house, to have a supreme regard in all their actings to the glory of God the Father, the authority of His The countev uioveiueut ot the friends of the Churcli'i constitu- tional liljer- ties. ment. THE EVANGELICAL ENGAGEMENT. 269 beloved Son, the only King in Zion, and the spiritual chap.xit. liberty and prosperity of the church which He hath purchased with His own blood. •''Whereas, also, it is their right and privilege, and is especially incumbent upon them in trying times, as ^t'ilic^age- well for their own mutual encouragement and support as for the greater assurance of the church at large, to unite and bind themselves together, by a public pro- fession of their principles, and a solemn pledge of adherence to the same, as in like circumstances our ancestors were wont to do. ''And, whereas, God in His providence has been pleased to bring the church of Scotland into a position of great difficulty and danger by acting according to the dictates of conscience and the word of God, immi- nent hazard of most serious evil, personal as well as public, is incurred. ''In these circumstances it beino- above all thinofs desirable, that in the face of all contrary declarations and representations, our determination to stand by one another and by our principles should be publicly avowed, and by the most solemn sanctions and securities, before God and the country, confirmed and sealed, — "We, the undersii'-ned. Ministers and Elders, ^'7*'^'*".''y''e- humbling ourselves under the mighty hand of our God, acknowledging His righteousness in all His ways, confessing our iniquities and the iniquities of our fathers, mourning over the defections and short- comings which have most justly provoked His holy displeasure against His church; adoring, at the same time. His long-suffering, patience, and tender mercy. 270 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. and giving thanks for the undeserved grace and loving kindness with which He has visited His people and revived His cause, under a deep sense of our own insufficiency, and relying on the countenance and blessing of the great God and our Saviour, Do deliber- ately publish and declare our purpose and resolution to maintain — in all our actings, and at all hazards to defend — those fundamental principles relative to the government of Chrisfs house, His church on earth, for which the church of Scotland is now called to contend, — principles which we conscientiously believe to be founded on the word of God, recognized by the standards of that church, essential to her integrity as a church of Christ, and inherent in her constitution as the established church of this land. " The principles now referred to, as they have been gSeraent rcpcatcdly declared by this church, are the two foUow- ) up° ing^ viz. : — I. ' That the Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers distinct from the civil magistrate.* II. 'That no minister shall be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the congrega- tion.' '*To these principles we declare our unalterable adnerence, and applying them to the present position and the present duty of the church, we think it right to state still more explicitly what we conceive to be implied in them. *' 1. We regard the doctrine — * that the Lord Jesus is the only King and Head of His church, and that He hath therein appointed a government in the hands of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate;' Tlicprincipli wiiich tlie THE EVANGELICAL ENGAGEMENT. 271 tliis sacred and glorious doctrine we regard as fcncino- chap.xii. in the cliurcli of God a2;-ainst all encroachments and ^^i'"'^'"" "f o tlie muepen- invasions, inconsistent with the free exercise of all the dicuonT spiritual functions which the Lord Jesus has devolved either upon its rulers or upon its ordinary members. While, therefore, we abhor and renounce the popish doctrine, that the government, ajDpointed by the Lord Jesus in His church, has jurisdiction over the civil magistrate in the exercise of his functions, or excludes his jurisdiction in any civil matter, we strenuously assert that it is independent of the civil magistrate, and that it has a jurisdiction of its own in all ecclesi- astical matters, with which the civil magistrate may not lawfully interferti, either to prevent or to obstruct its exercise. *'2. In particular, we maintain, that all questions relating to the examination and admission of ministers, or to the exercise of discipline and the infliction or removal of ecclesiastical censures, lie within the pro- wi.at is in PI 1 1, .. ■,,.■,.. in eluded ill 1 lie vmce ot the church s spu'itual lurisdiction: and all jonsdictiou ^ •' ' of the such questions must be decided by the church officers, ^^'"'''''• in whose hands the government is appointed, accord- ing to the mind and will of Christ, revealed in His word, — not according to the o[)inions or decisions of any secular authority whatsoever. We are very far, indeed, from insisting, that the judgments of the competent church officers, in such questions, can of themselves carry civil consequences, or necessarily rule the determination of any civil points that may arise out of them. In regard to these, as in regard to all temporal matters, we fully acknowledge the civil magistrate to be the sole and supreme judge, — bound, 272 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiAf. XII. indeed, to have respect to the word of God and the liberties of Christ's church, yet always entitled to act independently, on his own convictions of what is right. But in regard to all spiritual consequences, and espe- cially in regard to the spiritual standing of members of the church and their spiritual privileges and obliga- tions, the judgments of the church officers are the only judgments which can be recognized by us as compe- tent and authoritative. And if, at any time, the civil magistrate pronounce judgments by which it is attempted to control, or supersede, or impede the sentences of the church officers in these spiritual matters, and in their spiritual relations and effects, we Putvofthe must feel ourselves compelled to act upon our own Church ... . , , ™ . when the conscicntious interpretation of the wdl of Christ, — civu powers 1 ' wih her disregarding their judgments as invalid, and protesting proper juris- • - ,1 diction. agamst them as oppressive. " 3. As the Lord Jesus has appointed a govern- ment in His church, in the hands of church officers, so we believe, at the same time, that He has invested the ordinary members of His church with important spiritual privileges, and has called them to exercise, on their own responsibility, important spiritual func- ApphcHtionoftions. In particular, we are persuaded that their ques- consent, either formally given, or inferred from the absence of dissent, ought to be regarded by the church officers as an indispensable condition in forming the pastoral relation; and that the act of a congregation agreeing, either expressly or tacitly, or declining to receive any pastor proposed to them, ought to be free and voluntary, proceeding upon their own conscientious convictions, and not to be set aside by the church the doctrine to the THE EVANGELICAL ENGAGEMENT. 273 officers, — the latter, however, always retaining invio- c.iai.xii. late their constitutional powers of government and superintendence over the people. We hold it, accord- Reasons for '- •'■J- condemning ingly, to be contrary to the very nature of the pastoral "'o./of mi„. relation, and the end of the pastoral office, — altogether inconsistent with the usefulness of the church, and hostile to the success of the gospel ministry — an act of oppression on the part of whatever authority enforces it, and a cause of grievous and just offence to the people of God, — that a minister should be settled in any congregation in opposition to the solemn dissent of the communicants. We deliberately pledge our- selves, therefore, to one another, and to the church, that we will, by the help of God, continue to defend the people against the intrusion of unacceptable Theenga-e- . . ■, , . , 1 If. ment as to mniisters, — and that we will consent to no plan for nou-mtm- i sion. adjusting the present difficulties of the church, which does not afford the means of effectually securing, to the members of every congregation, a decisive voice in the forming of the pastoral tie. '* 4. And, further, with reference to the question of civil establishments of religion, which we believe to be deeply and vitally concerned in the present con- tendings of the church, we feel ourselves called upon to bear this testimony, — that holding sacred the prin- Recognition ciple of establishments as sanctioned both by reason cye'or"'" and the word of God, — recognizing the oblicjation of biisiiments. civil rulers to support and endow the church, and the lawfulness and expediency of the church receiving countenance and assistance from the state, — we at the same time hold no less strongly, that the principles which we have laid down regarding the government of H. s 274 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XT'. Clirist's cliurcli and the standing of his people, can not be surrendered or compromised for the sake of any- temporal advantages, or any secular arrangements whatsoever: that it is both unwise and unrighteous in the civil magistrate to impose upon the church any conditions incompatible with these principles : and that no consideration of policy, and no alleged pros- pect of increased means of usefulness, can justify the Because the cliurcli iu accediun* to such a condition. We emphati- cumcu^th cally protest against the doctrine, that in establishing "ore, to con- the church, the civil mao-istrate is entitled to impose trol tlie . . ° . r-p 1 ciiurchin r^i^y restrictions on the authority of her office-bearers, matters spi- J •! ritual. ^^ ^i^g liberties of her members. On the contrary, we strenuously assert, that it is his sacred duty, as it is his interest, to give positive encouragement and sup- port to the church in the exercise of all her spiritual functions, — for thus only can Qod, from whom he receives his power, be fully glorified, or the prosperity and greatness of any people be effectually promoted. We admit, indeed, that as supreme in all civil matters, the civil magistrate has always command over the temporalities bestowed upon the church, and has ^stat7'irmit^-° power to withdraw them. But he does so under a distosauf serious responsibility. And at all events the church, its o«-u gilts. ^ . •'. whilst protesting against the wrong, must be prepared to submit to their being withdrawn, rather than allow him to encroach upon that province which the Lord Jesus has marked out as sacred from his interference. " 5. While we consider the church's course of duty to be plain, if such an emergency as we have supposed should arise, we have hitherto believed, and notwith- standing the recent adverse decisions of the civil courts. THE EVANGELICAL ENGAGEMENT. o-j-.^ we still believe that the constitution of the established chap. xtt. church of Scotland, as ratified by the state at the eras ^ciuuTi°ot'''' of the revolution and the union, when after many lono- r.tifieTby struggles, her liberty was finally achieved, effectually secured that church against this grievous evil. The only quarter from whence danger to her freedom ever could, since these eras, be reasonably apprehended, is the system of patronage : against which, when it was restored in 1711, the church strenuously protested, and of which, — as we have much satisfaction, espe- cially after recent events, in reflecting, — she has never approved. The restoration of that system we ■ hold to have been a breach of the revolution settle- ment and the treaty of union, contrary to the faith of nations. Even under it, indeed, we have maintained and will contend to the uttermost, that tlie constitution of the church and country gives no warrant for the recent encroachment of the civil courts upon the ecclesiastical province : that in terms of that constitu- tion the church has still wholly in her hands the power of examination and admission, and in the exer- cise of that power, is free to attach what weight she judges proper, to any element whatever, that she feels it to be necessary to take into account, as afFectino- the t fitness of the presentee, or the expediency of his settle- ment : and that unquestionably in whatever way the church may deal with the question of admission, the hP''y^'"''° civil courts have no right to interfere, except as to the disposal of the temporalities. But while we have -lie apt of Queen Anne was never understood till now to hiivetoudii d the spiritiM Cliurcli. taken this ground, and will continue to maintain it to be lawful, constitutional, and impregnable, even under the restored system of patronage, we avow our opposi- s 2 ' i of the civil courts on tlie mis- chiefs of patronage. 276 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XII. tioii to tliG systeiii itself, as a root of evil in the cliurch which ought to be removed, — ^the cause in former times of wide-spread spiritual desolation in the land, as well as of more than one secession of many godly- men from the church, — and the source in these our own days, of our present difficulties and embarrass- Light thrown meuts. We look upon the recent decisions of the Ijy late deci- ^ civil courts, as illustrating the real character of that system of patronage which they attempt so rigidly to enforce : making it clear that it does impose a burden upon the church and people of Scotland, greatly more grievous than it was ever before believed to do. We consider it to be impossible for the church, so long as this matter continues on its present footing, fully to vindicate, or effectually to apply her inherent and fundamental principles : and it is now more than ever our firm persuasion, that the church ought to be wholly delivered from the interference of any secular or worldly right at all, with her deliberations relative to the settlement of ministers. We declare, there- fore, our determination to seek the removal of this yoke, which neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear : believing that it was imposed in violation of ,of a sacred national engagement, and that its removal will, more effectually than any other measure, clear the way for a satisfactory and permanent adjustment of all the questions and controversies in which we are now involved. ** Having thus set forth the principles on which we are united, being deeply impressed with a sense of their sacredness and magnitude, having our minds filled with solemn awe as we contemplate the crisis to Resolution to seek tl ubolitii THE EVANGELICAL ENGAGEMENT. 277 which God, in his holy providence, has brought this cnAP.xn. church and kingdom, — a crisis of immediate urgency and of momentous issues, in which great principles must be tested, and interests of vast extent may be affected; and desiring to deliberate and act with a single eye to the divine glory, and a simple regard to the divine will, — *'We, the undersigned. Ministers and Elders, Engagement do solemnly, as in a holy covenant with God and with andEWers *' •' to stand by one another, engage to stand by one another and by °"« '^^^'^er. the church which God's own right hand hath planted among us, promising and declaring that, by the grace and help of Almighty God, we will adhere to the two great principles which we have avowed; and in all our actings as office-bearers in the church, will do our utmost, at all hazards, to carry them into effect ; and that we will consent to no surrender or compromise of the same, but will faithfully and zealously prosecute our endeavours to obtain a settlement of the present question, in entire accordance therewith. *' And considering, that in this struggle in which the church is engaged, it is most necessary that we should be assured of the concurrence and co-operation of the christian people, on whose sympathy and xiie appeal to prayers we, in the discharge of our functions as rulers, greatly lean, and by whose influence and assist- ance we can best hope effectually to press upon the governors of this great nation the just claims of the church, — " We do most earnestly and affectionately invite our friends and brethren, members of the church of our fathers, to come to our help and to the help of the 278 'I'ilE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XII. Loi'd, — to clecliire their concuiTeiice in the great prin- ^oahe""'^^'' ciples for which we are called to contend, and their determination to do all in their power, in their station vited to con- cur in tliis Jlenibers of the Church invited to protest ii^rtiinst the law of p;i- tronu''c. and according to their means and opportunities, to aid us in maintaining and defending these principles, so that they, as well as we, shall consider themselves pledged to uphold the church in her present struggle, and, in particular, to use the powers and privileges which, as the citizens of a free country, they have received from God, and for the exercise of which they are responsible to Him for this, above all other ends, that the determination of the legislature of this great nation, whenever this subject shall come before them, may be in accordance with those principles which all of us hold to be essential to the purity of the church and the prosperity of the people. " We, in an especial manner, invite them to raise a united and solemn protest against the system of patronage, which, unjust and obnoxious as it was in its first enactment, the decisions of the civil courts are now rivetting more firmly than ever on the reclaim- ing church of their fathers. The entire removal of that system they have the fullest warrant to claim on the ground of their ancient constitution and the solemn guarantee by which their national freedom and their religious faith have been secured; and, finally, recog- nizing the hand of God in our present troubles, depending wholly on His interposition for a happy issue out of them, and remembering what our fathers have told us, — what work the Lord did in their days and in the times of old, we call upon the christian people to unite with us in a solemn enoa eneral assembly had ** enioined the commission, in Proceedings p , . . . . oftheCom- the event of the said mniisters continuing contuma- u.estnith- cious, to take the necessary steps for serving them ''°°"'^''- with a libel/' — and had cited the seven ministers " to appear before the commission in August," with the usual certification. Disregarding this citation, they failed to appear ; and as if to aggravate this contempt of the orders of the supreme court of the church, a minute was handed in by their agent, stating " that he had been instructed by his clients to intimate that they did not intend to appear at this meeting of the commission, or at any of its other meetings to be held under the authority of the last assembly's resolutions and sentence relative to them." Since the assembly they had gone to the court of session and obtained an interdict against the whole proceedings which the assembly had taken against them. And in this minute they now informed the commission that they could not, " without acting inconsistently, recognize The suspend. , , . efl ministers or sanction any part of the proceedings which have ?j'°^j|J.t/oa been suspended as illegal." This was, in other words, cim/ch. to say, that in matters undeniably spiritual, and which belonged to the ordinary duties of their office as minis- ters of Christ, they had thrown off their allegiance to the courts of the church, and put themselves into the hands of the courts of law. To have permitted so gross an outrage, would have been to make a mockery of those ordination vows which the church imposes 282 THE TEN YEARS' COxNFLICT. ciiAP. xii. upon all its office-bearers, and to lay the church's authority in the dust. The commission having ^nlotfortr' accordingly resolved, on the motion of Mr. Dunlop, report this new act of to rcDort this new act oi contumacy to the general contumacy ■!• .< o Assemhiy. asseuibly, proceeded to the discharge of the duty they had been instructed to perform. The j)i'ocurator, Mr. Bell, after an elaborate speech expository of that conflict of jurisdictions which had now arisen between the civil and ecclesiastical courts, made a motion to the effect, that the commission find the seven minis- ters to be still contumacious, and resolve to serve them with a libel. In opposition to this motion, an amendment was proposed by Dr. Cook, that " the commission, under all the circumstances of the case, see cause not to act upon the instructions of last general assembly, as to taking steps to serve with a libel for contumacy the seven ministers of the presby- tery of Strathbogie, mentioned in these instructions, and report the whole matter to next assembly for ^^.?cl%?' reconsideration," ii •• • i it* ter^- pose for which deposition is contemplated ? it is to deprive these venerable and excellent men of their sacred character, of their status in society, and of the emoluments of their benefices. And why ? Because they refuse to set at nought the law of the land, — the solemn judgments of the only tribunals by which that law, as to what they declare to concern civil matters, can be administered." To deprive the seven ministers of their emoluments was not, in any proper sense of the words, '' the pur- THE SEVEN MINISTERS LIBELLED. 283 pose" fur which their deposition was contemplated, chai. xn. The pnrpose intended by that act was to deprive them 'ei;!,]^"' '^''• of a spiritnal office which they were using, in direct opposition to the very authority by which it had been bestowed. If the loss of their spiritual office should carry the loss of their benefices in its train, it would do so, simply because the civil law had connected these two things tooether. The church had not said, nor had it ever pretended to have any right to say, that every minister whom she deprived of his spiritual office and cure, must also, and ipso facto, be dejDrived of his benefice. What the church did say, and was connection J ' between ile- prepared at all hazards to maintain, was this, — that jvora'the it belono-ed to her exclnsively, to determine the cir- ottice'mui "-' ^ ^ '' deprivation cumstances in which ordination and the cure of souls Hce'!"!]'/"" were either to be given or taken away. Bnt because gument"^' the state had aojreed that the title to the temporalia tws'coma"- was to cease whensoever the title to the spiritualia should be withdrawn, — was the state on that account to be allowed to take the spiritualia into its own hand ? Dr. Cook, re-echoing the new doctrine of the courts of law, assumed that it was. '' Your sentence of deposi- tion," said he, ''will affect the livings of these men, — and, tjierefore, it belongs to the court of session not only to decide whether they have done anything to forfeit their livings, but also to hinder you from pro- nouncing the sentence of deposition at all, if that court shall be of opinion that it has not been deserved." Snch a doctrine would obviously be as fatal to the liberties of a nonconforming as of an established church. In every church, the deposition of a minister 284 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chai' xiT. must ordinarily affect his status in society, and his "fatauoThf emoluments too. If, therefore, this consequence were uon'con-'"^ euou^-h to cutitlc the civil tribunals to interfere, to the forming as - . , . , . . , well as of eiiect 01 suspending or superseding the spiritual chuiches. sentence of the church, — ecclesiastical discipline must come to an end. The mere fact, that the state itself had conferred those emoluments of which the ecclesi- astical sentence indirectly deprived the deposed minis- ter, could make no real difference in the argument. It was the state's own choice to connect the forfeiture of its own gift with the loss of the spiritual office. Neither Dr. Cook, nor any one else, pretended to say that it was any part of the statutory condition on which the state had granted its endowments, that the courts of law should be allowed to review, and if they saw cause, to reverse the spiritual sentences of the church. His assumption was founded on a far broader principle. It rested, where the Dean of Faculty and the majority of the civil judges had placed it, on this ^')r.S°s^ simple and sweeping doctrine, that whatever '' affected argument. ^^^^| Hglits " bccauie a propor subject of civil jurisdic- tion; and that it did so, not merely to the effect of entitling the civil court to guard the civil interests concerned in the case, but to the effect of empowering it to interdict the spiritual court from proceeding in the matter at all. The time will, perhaps, come, when the fact will be seen and acknowledged, in quarters where it was neither seen nor acknowledged at the time, that in withstanding Dr. Cook and the court of session, the church of Scotland was fighting a battle for the liberties of every section of the church of Christ. THE SEVEN MINISTERS LIBELLED. 285 In the course of the discussion a good deal had been chap. xii. said, by the apologists of the seven ministers, of the difficulties of their position, — threatened as they might consider themselves to be with the penalties of civil law, in the event of their following out the instructions of the church. It was in reference to this aro-unient, Tiieargument o ' ad imsencor- ad misericordiam, that an old soldier, Mr. Charles fovom'of Maitland Christie, of Durie, a faithful elder of the mi'i.i'sters, and Mr. church, spoke as follows : — '' You are aware, moderator, Surie'lTrepiy that when two hostile armies come into the vicinity of each other, it is not unusual to place picquets of defence in front of the main body. - "' "' I, sir, have had the honour of being placed in such a picquet; and when I was told by my commanding officer to consider it not as a picquet of alarm but as a picquet of defence, I felt, that if the enemy should advance upon that picquet of the line, it would be my duty to fight there and to die there. Now, suppose that on such an occasion seven of the officers received similar instructions, and suppose that the enemy should advance in apparently overwhelming numbers and endeavour to force their way through, by pouring a destructive fire into the midst of them, — and suppose that under these circumstances the seven officers took Ti'e seven ministers to their heels and ran away, and were brought before soiS^de-" a court martial, and that they should plead that they post"^*^'"" had no choice but to run away and be dismissed from the British service, or, on the other hand, if they remained, to be shot by the enemy. But suppose that the enemy had advanced in this manner, — that they only made a demonstration of attack by sending out a reconnoitring party, and approaching within 286 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XII. soiiie seveiitj or a hundred yards of tlie Britisli linef^, ^wn>;'s<*' took a look at tliem through their telescopes ; — sup- awayauhe posc that the seveu officers had run away under these euemy's circumstaiices, and pleaded before a court martial, — telescopes. ^ not that the enemy had fired on them, but that if they had remained the enemy might have fired on them, — what, sir, would have been the effect, before a court martial, of such a defence ? " The gallant soldier did not need to tell what its effect would have been : the hearty laughter of the house told it sufficiently well. Another speaker, the Rev. Dr. Simpson, of Kirk- newton, met in a graver but not less effective strain, the argument which Mr. Christie, by this stroke of sarcastic humour, overturned. " His reverend friend. Dr. Cook, i^«.^-^i- , had talked of the difficulties which arose from a mixed Miupsoii s opS'tion to jurisdiction. He, Dr. Simpson, and his friends might feel a difficulty of this kind : but how Dr. Cook and his friends could feel any difficulty he did not see. They had merely to ask the court of session what was civil and what was ecclesiastical, and as obedient sons of the church, forsooth, they would obey it. His reverend friend said. You are about to punish these gentlemen, — and for what are you going to punish them ? Because they refuse to set at nought the law of the land, and because they take their interpretation of the law from the only court competent to give it in civil matters. But the question reverts, — What is a civil matter and what an ecclesiastical. The very same court tells you that this is civil and that is eccle- siastical, and that we have nothing to do but to obey it. The speech of his reverend friend had astonished him beyond the power of expression, and if anything THE SEVEN MINISTERS LIBELLED. 287 could add to that astonishment, it was tliat such a cirAi>. xn. speech should have proceeded from such a quarter. '"\:;.-",f^!'S* Dr. Simpson's astonishment at the speech of Dr. Cook mustnow"" theny is most probably surpassed by his astonishment wnspeLcu. at his own speech now/-'' The debate having been adjourned till the evening, was again resumed, and continued till ftir on in the night. The object of so protracted a discussion was not to gain votes in the commission; for the minds of its members were already made up, and the majority aorainst the Strathboo-ie ministers, it was well known, would be very great. But the commission afforded an important opportunity, which the magnitude of the interests at stake made it necessary to seize, of in- structing upon this whole subject both the members of the church and of the community in general. Save for this purpose, by far the larger portion of the discus- sion would have been altogether superfluous. In re- opening the debate, after the adjournment,Mr.Maitland Makgill Crichton, — the lineal descendant of that Mak- o-ill of Rankeillour, Lord Clerk Register of Scotland, Mr. d. m. 1 \ n • ^ PTT- 11 1 ' Crichtoii's who was the personal friend of Knox, — had to complam complaint. of nothino- so much as of the want of an antaixonist. Ho was himself the fourth speaker in succession on the same side of the debate. The fact was abundantly significant. It seemed to say that the supporters of erastianism had sheathed their swords, either for lack of argument, — or for lack of courage and ability to use them. The speech of the evening was that of Dr. * Dr. Simpson rcinaiiicd in the establishment. lie did not run away, like the seven ministers, when the enemy were only looking at him through their telescopes; — he waited till they began to fire. 288 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XII Clialmers. After an exposition of that great principle for which the chnrch was now contending, — an expo- sition distinguished by all the attributes of his lofty and impressive eloquence, — Dr. Chalmers proceeded to advert to the notion some persons, and these high in station, appeared to entertain, that this was a con- test in which he and his friends might be expected to Speech of the give Way. ''We must stand out," said he, after chlime^rs. enumerating the successive and intolerable encroach- ments of the courts of law, — ''we must stand out against this series of aggressions thus rising in magnitude one above the other, else the most sacred, the most sacra- mental of our institutions, the very innermost recesses of the sanctuary, will be opened to the invader and trampled under foot. I know the obloquy which will be heaped upon us. I have heard the odious names which will be given us for this resistance: and I am prepared for them. If not an impartial public, at least an impartial posterity, will tell whether we are rebels, or they are persecutors. And here I may say one word to those who express the hope, and I observe Allusion to that Sir Robert Peel is among the number, — that we slTRobert Will yct glvc up our personal feelings and do otherwise than this. To what personal feelings he refers, he does not specify, — whether it be the feeling of irritation or of false honour, — the pride of men who have committed themselves and gone too far to retract without shame and degradation. If so, never was an appeal made wider of its object. These personal feelings have no existence with us: or if they have, it is in such a slight degree, that they are altogether overborne by principles of a depth and height and breadth and length sufficient THE SEVEN MINISTERS LIBELLED. 289 to engross and occupy the whole man. The principles, chap. xii. whether our adversaries comprehend them or not, — the only moving forces that have told and still tell on the assembly, are the full security of our spiritual independence. The Headship of Christ, — the autho- rity of the bible as our great spiritual statute book, not to be lorded over by any power upon earth, — a deference to our own standards in matters ecclesiastical, — and a submission unqualified and entire to the civil power in all matters civil. These are our principles: itisaques- and these principles, not personal feelings, we are i«"in"s'but asked to give up by men who have put forth unhallowed hands upon them. I ask, is there no room for a similar appeal to them? Have they no personal feel- ings,— no acrimony arising from the anticipation of defeat, — no triumph arising from the anticipation of victory. Have they no mortification of wounded vanity lest their battle cry — Svhat firmness has done before, firmness may do again,' — lest that battle cry should be rolled back by a resolute and unyielding church on the heads of those who used it." This allusion to the famous words of Mr. Hope's letter to the chan- cellor, thrilled every breast. The enthusiasm of the house and of the audience knew no bounds: the place "i, where they were assembled shook with the deafening cheers in which they responded to a sentiment that found, save among the handful of moderates, an echo in every heart. The vehemence, however, with which their feelings broke forth, to use one of the many felicitous sayings of the orator himself, was "the vehe- mence of sentiment and not the vehemence of passion.' The allusion carried back their thoughts to the lonely Enthusiasm the Coiu- and 290 THE TEN YEA.RS' CONFLICT. Chap. XII. moors, OF morc lonely dungeons, where, a century and a half before, the same battle had been fought, — and where the firmness of the martyr's endurance proved more than a match for both the firmness and the ferocity of the persecutor's power. No one who was ^^ wt of the present that evening could doubt, that if the spirit of Church sur- ^|^^ g^arps aud Mackenzies and Lauderdales was not extinct, neither was that of the Guthries, Argyles, and Warristons, — of the Carstairses, Baillies, and M'Kails. But Dr. Chalmers was not yet done with his excit- ing theme. A moderate minister had risen while the tempest of strong emotion which the occasion called forth was still at its height, to complain of the cheers, — and of the observations by which they had been evoked. The interruption served only, as all such ill-timed interruptions do, to prolong the tumultuous interlude, and to give to the speaker what he much needed, a little time to breathe. " I was enumerat- ing," he said, when silence was again restored, '' what may be the personal feelings of our adversaries, and I have a right to do so. I have a right to state every- thing that has occurred, whether within or without the limits of this court, that may lead the house to a right decision. I say, is there no inward chagrin among Dr. Chalmers parliamentary friends, mourning over their abortive retorts upon . c re ^ i t • su-^Roiiert measures, — is there no sense ot ottended dignity among the functionaries of the law, lest it should be found that law — no impossible thing in the course of a hundred and fifty years — had for once gone beyond its sphere? I ask which of the rival elements ought to give way ? Whether the personal feelings of the THE SEVEN MINISTERS LIBELLED. 291 men who have nothing to lose in this contest, or the chap. xii. personal feelings of men who are ready to risk all for their principles ; and who, though many of them are in the winter of life, would, — rather than renounce their principles, — abandon their homes, and brave the pros- pect of being cast, with their helpless and houseless families, upon the wide world? I ask if it was well ung«n^'"°"' ■•- cluiracter of in Sir Robert Peel, from his high station, and from feovt''^ his seat of silken security, to deal out his admonitions to the Church of Scotland in this way; and while he spares the patrician feelings of his compeers, to take no account of the principles and feelings of those conscientious men who, humble in station but high in spirit, are ready, like their forefathers of old, to renounce all their enjoyments for the glory and the dignity of the church ? " It was on this occasion that Dr. Chalmers sfave the first public notice of the conviction which late events had been fast ripening in his mind, that if the church was ever to obtain a thorough extrication from her present difficulties, it must be by getting rid of the law of patronage altogether. Alluding to the Pr. chaimen , . /> 1 indicates his movement at that moment gomor on out or doors — to increasing cj o inclination the anti-patronage principles of the " engagement," u.eantr* and of the great St. Cuthbert's meeting, — " So far moveS. as I can understand," said he, " the proposal now is, that whereas we have hitherto been thwarted in all our attempts to find a place for the popular will in the settlement of ministers, we must now labour with all our might to find a place for it in the initiative. In other words, as we were not permitted, in peace and without molestation, to regulate the call, let the t2 292 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chaf. XII, riglit of nomination be so regulated as to anticipate the call: and for this purpose let us, in the name of all Scotland, — and I am sure of nineteen-twentieths of her people, — seek, through the medium of the legislature, to modify, and, if less won't do, utterly to abolish, the system of patronage. It is a consumma- contempiates ^jq^ ^q wliicli I sliall look forward without uneasiness, tlie abolition ' with"-''' — nay more, not without the hope of the glorious thertii'an enlargement of our church, — always provided, how- with alarm. ° ... ever, that the church's spiritual independence is left an intact and inviolable element amidst all these changes. I am no flatterer of the people. With all my respect for the mind and will of an honest congre- gation, however simple and however poor, — they may go astray in their way just as much as the patron does in his; and if the independent negative of the church be called for as a stay on the corruption of the one, the same check may be required as a corrective on the occasional extravao-ancies, or follies, or overweeninor partialities of the other. The time is fast approaching when our (political) constitution will be greatly more popularized; and it is one of the reasons why I plead so strongly at present for the independence of the church, that if we are obliged to give it up now to the patrons, we must give it up then to the people." Dr. Chalmers He supports coucluded this memorable speech by saving that, how- the motion _ ^ ... ever painful the duty, he felt it to be imperative to give his vote " for serving the proposed libel on the refractory ministers of Strathbogie." Dr. Chalmers was followed by the Rev. Mr. Robert- son, of Ellon, who spoke against the procurator's motion, chiefly on the ground of its tendency to to libel the seren minis- ters. THE SEVEN MINISTERS LIBELLED. 293 motion to liljel the seven minis- ters. aggravate the difficulties of tlie cliurch. He did chap. xii not attempt a defence of the Strathbogie ministers, though he made some apologies for them. He was replied to by Mr. Candlish, and the debate soon after drew to a close. Mr. Pringle, of Whytbank, M.P., *onvhyt?°' declared his intention to vote for the libel. " It was supportsThe manifest," he said, " that the church could not exist at all, if the inferior courts were not to be subordinate to the superior." Upon a division the motion to libel the Strathbogie ministers was affirmed by a majority of 180 to QQ, — or very nearly three to one. The committee, appointed under the motion, to pre- pare the libel, gave it in on the following day, when it was considered and approved, and the usual steps taken to have it served on the offenders. A similar course was followed in regard to Mr. Edwards, the refractory presentee to Marnoch, — who, however, had appeared at the bar in obedience to the citation of the assembly. The measures proper to his case were held to have been decided by that of the seven minis- ters, and were accordingly gone into without a discus- sion or a vote. The next movement in the Strathbogie prosecution was made at the succeeding quarterly commission of assembly, on the 18th of November. The clerk The Novem- haviniT read the certification that the libel had been swu -indthe O Stratlihogie duly served, Mr. Patrick Robertson, as counsel for ^''^^^s""^- the seven ministers, addressed the house. The sum of the learned gentleman's speech was embodied in the written defences which he put in for his clients. These were ranged under seven heads, with the usual legal prolixity; but the substance of the whole may 294 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XII. be Stated in these two sentences — -first, tliey denied ^glmfinby that the commission had any lawM jurisdiction what- jeu coun- ^^^^ ^ ^g a ^^^^ being a court established or sanctioned by the laws of the land;" and, second, that the sen- tence of the assembly under which they were libelled having been " suspended as illegal," and all proceed- inirs arisinoj out of that sentence havinor been " inter- dieted by the court of session," the sentence was '' in itself void," and the libel founded on it was a violation of the law of the land. In other words, the accused became the accusers, stigmatizing as a usurper the court that proposed to try them, and denouncing as a crime the libel to which they were called to plead. These singular defences, whose only merit was their extravagance and effrontery, were of course repelled: and the relevancy of the libel was sustained by a majority of 91 to 15. Mr. Edwards, the rejected presentee to Marnoch, whose case came next in order, as if determined not to be behind his friends in the insolence of his tone, handed in through his 'fMcef ut <^o^i^sel, Mr. Inglis, a paper in defence, in which the EdwardShe libel agalust him was described as " Si^ pretended libel Marnock "at thc iustaucc of some person or persons unknown." ! The paper, instead of being accepted as part of the defence, was ordered to be kept in retentis as a dis- tinct and additional outrage against the authority of the church. The relevancy of the libel against Mr. Edwards was also sustained ; and in the case of both libels the proof was appointed to be taken at the com- mission in March, — so as that the whole matter might be ripened for the decision of the general assembly. In the meanwhile, a series of proceedings took place THE MARNOCII INTRUSION. 205 wliicli, while they aggravated immensely the offence ci.ap.xii. of Mr. Edwards and the recusant ministers, brought on a still more direct and formidable collision between the courts of law and the authorities of the church. When the Auchterarder decision was first pronounced, ^{fiiTode-''' the common reply made to those who complained of spoli'at^ ^ -^ ^ ■■■ , first of the it was this, — You are altogether wrong in assuming ^^"'1}*"^;,,. that it carries in it any interference with the ordina- tion of a minister or with his admission to a cure of souls : it does nothing more than declare that the presbytery acted illegally in refusing to take trial of the qualifications of a presentee. Lord Jeffrey, indeed, had pointed out very distinctly at the time to what that decision must lead. He showed, with all his remarkable perspicuity and force, that in adopting it the court would be entering on a course which, if consistently followed out, would inevitably carry them into the very heart of the church's peculiar domain, and land them in the monstrous position of enforcing, by The eonse- ° "^ nuances of pains and penalties, the laying on of hands upon those ^.''gjgn'^'''" who were to minister in holy things. The general as- ghiningV^' sembly foresaw the same result, and hence the solemnity ana by the ' and the energy with which they protested from the Assembly. first against the Auchterarder decision. Such antici- pations, however, were held to be the mere dream of alarmists, or the trick of a party who wished to over- whelm with odium their antagonists in the discussion. The doctrine of civil supremacy in matters ecclesias- tical was then too raw and recent to venture so early upon the full and naked avowal of its pretensions. The time had not yet come for the legal Brennus to throw the sword of the invading secular power into 296 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cnAP.xn. the balances of the sanctuary. But it came at last; The time had g^j^^j [^ cauic lu a casc admirably fitted to illustrate an now come •' theeriS oidcr of things which carried back the ecclesiastical S'^aecl" history of Scotland from the nineteenth to the seven- teenth century; and which brought up under our good and gracious Queen Victoria, the vivid recollection of the times of Charles 11. and James VII. Mr. Edwards, disclaimed by the whole body of the parish- ioners of Marnoch, and rejected by the solemn sentence of the church, had notwithstanding got himself exa- mined and declared to be qualified, on the 19th of February, 1840, by a body of ministers themselves under a sentence of suspension, and therefore disqua- lified from performing any ecclesiastical function whatever in connection with the Church of Scotland. Mr. Edwards Thls douc, Mr. Edwards, first on the 25th of March calls on the ramisterfto foUowiug, aud afterwards successively on the 10th of SterT June, the 19th of August, and the 2d of September, had .called on the suspended presbyters to complete the process they had begun, by ordaining and admitting him to the charge. The charge, indeed, might be small ; for the sole parishioner who invited him to be his minister was Peter Taylor, the publican of Aber- chirder; but then the stipend was considerable and the manse commodious, and ordination was a necessary step towards the acquisition of this goodly benefice. But the seven suspended ministers walked by rule; and the rule as yet carried them no further than they had already gone. The Auchterarder decision was their safe conduct up to the point of taking Mr. Edwards upon trials ; but they needed something more to assure them of perfect immunity, in the event THE MARNOCH INTRUSION. 297 of their complying with the additional demand to ciiAp.xn, intrude him into the parish. Not that they had any "^^f /^'^'p*"^- scruple about the thing itself, if only it could he done ?odoit!'imF without hazard to themselves. Accordinfj^ly a very tirsthavfa , . safe-conduct formidable -looking, but ni reality most friendly, action [,™^.^t^« was instituted against them by their own protege in ^'''"''"' the court of session. In this action, Mr. Edwards craved that, " by decree of the said lords,** the pres- bytery of Strathbogie, including both its suspended and unsuspended ministers, should be decerned and ordained " forthwith to admit and receive the pursuer as minister of the church and parish of Marnoch;" or otherwise, and in the event of their refusing, to j^ay to him, Mr. John Edwards, " the sum of £8000 sterling in name of damages,** and a " further sum of £2000 sterling, in reparation of the injury done to the pur- suer's character and usefulness, and to his status in the church of Scotland, and as a solatium for the injury done to his feelings." Lest the court of session should imaojine, even for a moment, that the seven The amicawe " ... suit between ministers had abated one jot or tittle of their deference thdrproteg^ to the civil tribunals, even in such sacred matters as iotlit"'^ ordination to the office of the holy ministry, they hastened to put in defences, in which they loudly declared themselves " willing to yield obedience to the decrees of this court." Three out of the four judges by whom the case was tried in the first division of the court of session — viz. the Lord President Hope, and Lords Gillies and Mackenzie — had now got so far on in the direction pointed at, three years before, by Lord Jeffrey, as to decide without hesitation that Decree grant- '* the decree now asked for was just a corollary from cou^r ^ 298 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xn. their former deed." The summons in the case having an alternative conchision for damages, the unsuspended ministers came also into court to defend their civil interests ; and in doing so they urged that a record should be made up in the usual form, so as to admit of the pleas put in on their behalf being duly ^o'nSects considered. Lord Fullerton, the only other judge, d°ecKT"°° was for sustaining that demand. ''It was in vain," he said, '' to appeal to the case of Auchterarder, which decided nothing whatever as to the power of this court to order the presbytery to receive and admit a presentee. This question was still an open one, and could be decided only when the record was closed; it was not before them at present. The question was just this, — whether, when the question of jurisdiction was sub-judice, this court should give a decision in favour of this disputed jurisdiction?" His lordship, however, was left alone in these views, and the court, without touching the question of damages, ijave decree in terms of the first conclusion of the summons, ordaining the majority of the presbytery by name, — that is, the seven suspended ministers, — to receive and admit Mr. Edwards as minister of the church and parish of Marnoch. This decision called forth an immediate and solemn protest from the most influential presbyteries of the Meeting of church. Tlic metropolitan presbytery, on the motion thePresby- ^ /■ t i bm^h'^hi'^rel of tlic Rov. Mr. Cunningham, adopted a series of twsded^on. resolutions, which were transmitted to her majesty's government, and in which the decision was declared to involve the exercise of a jurisdiction *' inconsistent with the word of God and the standards of the church," Lord Fuller- ton over- ruled liy the majority of the couit. THE MARNOCH INTRUSION. 29D and to be "an encroachment upon the rights and liber- cuAP.xrr. ties secured to the church and the people of Scotland by the revolution settlement, the act of security and the treaty of union.'* In the course of the learned and masterly address by which Mr. Cunningham supported these resolutions, he took occasion to say, — '* These ^pf^=^^"f "'^ men, the seven ministers, applied to Ceesar to restore h- This was distinctly enough declared from the bench. One of the judges said, — * it is true that these men have been suspended by the general assem- bly : but is it not also true,' he added with inimitable simplicity, ' that the court of session suspended that decision simpliciter.' It is unquestionable that they did so: and had the decision of the court merely been to the effect of denying civil effect to the spiritual censures of the church, that would have been another matter: it might have been ille 1 moderator, ministers, who occupied one oi the square seats near asks if there J- ■■• ^ are any pur- the pulpit, Mr. Thomson again stood up, and in the "howisrio capacity of moderator inquired, if there were any other timt-J^. u2 308 "^^^^ ^-"^ YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiAP.xir. individuals who wished to appear before the presbytery as parties in this case. This inquiry brought up immediately their former questioner, Mr. Murray, and the interrupted dialogue was resumed, Mr. Murray Mr. MuRRAY, addressiufT himself to the suspended the elder, ^ ' !D l t"'etiLj,cmi. ministers. — '^ Come you here by the authority of the shaupro-'" general assembly? I ask you that before answering di.ee their ° . "^ -.r-iii^ci warrant for your questiou, — as a member ot the church ot !Scot- tliese pro- J a ' ceeduigs. i^^^[^ g_j^(j g_g ^y^ elder in the parish of Marnoch." Mr. Thomson. — " We will give any information to the parties at the bar, but not to any other. Do you intend to sist yourself as a party at the bar ?" The suspended ministers knew well, that if they could only succeed in getting their judicial character recognized by the people, an air of authority would at once be imparted to their rebellious proceedings, and an important advantage in favour of their position gained. But the intelligent presbyterians of Marnoch were too well acquainted with the constitution of their church, and the business of its courts, to be drawn into the snare. And accordingly, to Mr. Thomson's question — •*' Did they intend to sist themselves as par- ties at the bar .^" Mr. Murray promptly replied — *' No, lutiham- ^^^'» — ^^^ ^^ ^^^y ^'^^® ■'■ sl^o^^l^^ fii'st require to know, upon what authority you are here in this church ?" Mr. Peterkin, a solicitor from Edinburgh and aojent of the suspended ministers, here interposed to say — "It is utterly impossible that any person can be heard who does not appear at the bar, and is not entered on the minutes as a party here." Upon this, Mr. Duncan, writer, from Aberdeen, and agent for the The seven attempt to induce the sist them selves as parties, — hut tliey re. THE MARNOCII INTKUSION. 309 elders and communicants of the parish, came forward: ciiap.xii. and the colloquy grew more exciting, and. to the soi- disant presbytery, more embarrassing still. Mr. Duncan. — '* I put again the question which The agent of has been, as yet, refused an answer. 1 assure you, no iouersre- ' J ' . peats the party of the parishioners of Marnoch will appear at '^'ufoJuy by your bar, until that question is answered, and I do not V-!L Jt. see how you can deny our right of questioning you first as to your own authority?" Mr. Masson, of Botriphnie. — " You have no right at all. We will allow no claim put forward in that manner." Mr. Duncan. — '' As an elder of the parish, Mr. Murray asks a question. He believes that you have no right to be present here at all. Now, answer me, — for what purpose are you here, and by whose autho- rity do you come ? We can't appear at your bar till we are convinced of your authority." Mr. Thomson. — " Although we do not admit the right of any party to question us or our authority here, yet I have no objection to say, that we are here as the presbytery of Strathbogie, — a part of the national church assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Great sensation among the audience.) Mr. Duncan. — " Do you appear here by the autho- rity of the general assembly, or against its authority?" (Great cheers.) (After a long pause, — and no answer being returned,) Mr. Duncan. — *' I must apply to you again for an answer to my question, and I beseech you to answer it as friends of the church, and as friends of the people of Marnoch, which you say that you are." Mr. Thomson at length replies : the sensiitiou produced. 310 TFIE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xii. Mr. Thomson. — "We are met here as tlie presby- tery of Strathbogie, and under the protection of the law of the land." Mr. Duncan. — " Do you give me no reply to my question?" Mr. Thomson. — " No, no." Mr. Cruickshank. — " Will you deliver your man- Tlie seven in sist on the . . , iiuent for the date. iiindute ^""".tJ.''' Mr. Duncan. — " I wish first to have an answer." The suspended ministers now becoming clamorous for Mr. Duncan's mandate, he turned round to the parishioners of Marnoch, who thronged the entire area of the church, and addressing them, said — " I ask you, the heads of families and people of Marnoch, assembled here, have I this day authority to appear for you and to speak for you." Every voice answered in the affirmative ; and again turning towards Mr. Thomson and his coadjutors, he said — " You have ''risc^uS'i ^^^^^'^ "^7 mandate. Have you ever had such a man- date produced before you as that?" In addition to these viva voce credentials, Mr. Duncan further pro- duced a written document in the usual form ; but the intrusionists held their peace. To tell by what autho- rity they did these things was as inconvenient for them as it was for the chief priests in the temple of old to answer a somewhat similar question to our Lord. Having pressed them upon the point far enough to make a thorough exposure of their pitiable position, Mr. Duncan read in their hearing the following notarial protest: — '' Gentlemen, — We, the subscribers, elders and others, who have signed for ourselves, and as It viva THE MARNOCH INTRUSION. 311 representing the otlier parisliioners of Marnoch, cnAP.xir. opposed to the settlement of Mr. Edwards as minister of that parish, do represent to you that it is with extreme pain and disappointment that your present position, as suspended ministers of the church of Scotland, precludes us from appearing before you to lodge and prove the objections which have been pre- ferred, and are ready to be substantiated, before any competent church court. These objections we solemnly declare to be such, affectinix as they do the qualifica- The people m '=' •' ^ ^ their maii- tions, life, and doctrine of Mr. Edwards, as in our tkiuh^evme opinion to cause his deposition, even if he were an nieaiiV" ■..-... 1 T 1 1 • n -I • • prove, before ordained minister: and to preclude him from admission "■ '^^^ ^^^"^ scarcely one ot the parishioners to proceed^nt,. ^j^^^ggg tlic dccd." Thc sccuc that followed was truly touching and impressive. In a body the parish- ioners rose, and gathering up the bibles which they had been wont to leave from Sabbath to Sabbath in the pews, they silently retired. The deep emotion that prevailed among them was visible in the tears which might be seen trickling down many an old man's cheek ; and in the flush, more of sorrow than of anger, that reddened many a younger man's brow. ^i'bod?'^'" '' ^^ never witnessed," said an onlooker, ''a scene bearing the slightest resemblance to this protest of the people, or approaching in the slightest degree to THE MARNOCH INTRUSION. 3;13 the moral beauty of tlieir withdrawal; for, stern chap.xii. though its features were, they were also sublime. No word of disrespect or reproach escaped them. They went away in a strong conviction that their cause was with the Most Powerful, and that with Him rested the redress of all their wrongs. Even the callous-hearted people that sat in the pew, the only pew representing ititrusionism and forced settlements, were moved, — Thesoicm. they were awed, — and the hearts of some among them s"ene%s"' , described by appeared to give way. Will they all leave ? we heard ,^"53^""'""' some of them whispering. Yes ; they all left, never to return, until the temple is purified again, and the buyers and sellers, — the traffickers in religion, — are driven from the house of God. They all left." '"■ Descending from the hill on which their parish church stood — a church on whose walls ** Ichabod " was now legibly written — they assembled in a little hollow in the valley beneath, and there, amid the winter's snow, the deeply-injured congregation took tuc people council too-ether as to their future course. Scotland fieidamid O the snow. was destined ere long to see many more outed congre- gations than that of Marnoch ; for the same causes that banished them from the walls of their parish sanctuary, were fast paving the way for the dis- ruption of the national church itself. Nothing that happened on the eventful day of the Marnoch intrusion was more remarkable than the resolution which, immediately after leaving the church, the people unanimously adopted, of retiring at once to * Extracted from the Aberdeen Banner — whose then editor, Mr. Troup, was present at Marnoch throughout the entire day. His graphic and eloquent report of the proceedings was circulated over the whole kingdom. 314 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiAP^'ii. ^Yi(.[j- homes. There was a self-denial in tliis resolu- They return . • i i i c< quietly to tion as severc as it was honourable, fetronof as the tlieu: owu ~ homes. temptation was to return and watch the progress of events at the church, thej would not have it said either that a parishioner of Marnoch had countenanced by his presence that disgraceful settlement, or that they had suffered themselves to be hurried, by the excitement of the scenes or by the sense of wrong, into any expression of their feelings that would have tarnished the purity and lowered the sacredness of their cause. ""thrchuixh, When the parishioners of Marnoch left the church, thrpavisif- their places were filled on the instant with the crowd filled by a of strauorers who, up till that time, had not been able crowd of O ' i ' stransers. ^^ ^^^^^ admittance. However much to be lamented, it is in no degree to be wondered at, that the order previously preserved should no longer have been maintained. The unhappy intrusionist ministers were pelted with snow-balls and other disagreeable though not very deadly missiles, while shouts, and groans, and hisses assailed them. Mr. Thomson attempted to make his way to the pulpit to begin those services of praise and prayer, and preaching of the word usual on such occasions ; but the passage and pulpit-stairs were thronged with people, and the attempt was vain. It is not surprising that the audience should have recoiled from the spectacle of the solemnities of divine worship employed for such a use, and should have shown a disposition to hinder rather than to help the individual who was about to conduct them. The The scenes t • i i thatfoiimved whole sccuc was a scandal to reliirion; but the a scandal to o ' rciis.on. impartial reader will judge to whom the responsibility THE MARNOCH INTRUSION. 31 5 of causing that scandal cliiefly belonged, — wlietlier to chap. xit. the handful of young and thoughtless persons scattered '^If^^^"'^" through an excited multitude, who were the immediate cS'twa authors of the confusion, or to those whose extra- popuiaifee!- ordinary and outrageous proceedings had drawn that multitude together, and given so much occasion for the disturbance which arose. Those who would throw all the blame upon the people would do well to recol- lect that, on a more recent occasion, and one in which the audience had much less cause of complaint, neither the sanctities of consecration nor the presence of lawn-sleeved prelates could restrain, in the metro- polis itself, the outburst of feeling which rang through the aisles of Bow church and startled Cheapside, when Dr. Hampden cleared his way to the see of '^]|f^,^^« ''f Hereford, by the help of the royal supremacy and at "'''-'"■P'^"' the expense of making a mockery of the rights of the church. Just about the time when order had been restored in the church of Marnoch, — chiefly through the in- tervention of a non-intrusionist, — one of the county magistrates, Mr. Stronach of Ardmellie, rode up rapidly to the church, and making his way into it, explained that he had been sent for to quell a riot ; "^-ideTup to'' but, lookino' around him on the people, he added that ofMarno'h he saw no riot to quell. The Rev. Mr. Walker of Huntly — '' We have been insulted, sir, in the discharge of our duty, and we claim your protection as a magistrate." Mr. Stronach — '* As a magistrate, I am bound to act, and will act if I see occasion. I wish to remark and Bow Church to quell the alleged riot, but tiiula none to luell. trate, a of the late luinister. o-j^g THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. that I do not see a single Marnoch parishioner in this meeting. '* Mr. Stronach, as the son of the kite minister of the Theraagis- parish, ancl as havinnj resided all his life amonoj the trate, a son 1 ' ^ ..... people, knew them well. An intrnsionist parishioner havino-, however, declared that the '' Marnoch people were as bad as any," Mr. Stronach, addressing him, said — " Will you, then, who must know them, name them? Name one who has acted wrong." The indi- vidual thus addressed proceeded accordingly to point out a young man in the gallery as having joined in the disturbance. Mr. Stronach — ''Why are you here, sir? I thought that with the other Marnoch people you had gone away ; and I trust you have not disgraced yourself by taking part in unseemly proceedings." The person thus singled out assured Mr. Stronach that he was there simply because he could not get out, and that he was guiltless of any share in the disturbance. Tells the only Mr. Stronach — "Will you go away now? and if man remain- you wiU, I shall liavc a passaofo cleared for you?" inginthe J ' ± O J kave'it/'' This was done, and the Marnoch parishioner at once withdrew. " Now, sir," continued Mr. Stronach, again addressing the individual by whom the young man had been pointed out, " you said there were several Marnoch people. Have you more to name?" '* No, sir," was the reply. Mr. Stronach then intimated to the suspended ministers that, however unjjleasant it was for him to interfere in this matter, he was there as a magistrate. trate advises Mr. Thora- suu to pro- fced now, THE MARNOCH INTRUSION. 31'^ and tliey might rely on his protection; and, addressing cuAr.xir, the moderator, he added — " Mr. Thomson, there is now Ti;e perfect quiet; so yon had better proceed, and be as ' short and concise as you possibly can/' After a short "^^J^^^^ psalm and a hurried prayer, Mr. Thomson gave out as ^'=^*' ^'^• his text — " Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful." Solemn and striking words! How would the inspired and devoted man who wrote them have started to hear them repeated in such circum- stances and in such a scene ! The sermon over, the ordination service followed ; and preparatory to it, the putting to Mr. Edwards of those questions which embody the ordination vows. Without their introduc- tion here, the account of this memorable scene would be altogether incomplete. Let the reader picture to himself the presentee standing up in the face of the assembled j^eople, while, one after another, the follow- ing questions are addressed to him from the pulpit: — ''1. Do you believe the scriptures of the old and new Theoniina testament to be the word of God and the only rule of faith and manners ? "2. Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by the general assembly of this church, and ratified by law in the year 1690, to be founded on the word of God, and to acknowledge the same as the confession of your faith, and will you firmly and constantly adhere thereto and to the utmost of your power, assert, main- tain and defend the same and the purity of worship 318 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. XII. as presently practised in this national churcli, and asserted in act 15. assembly 170 " 3. Do you disown all popish, ariau, socinian, and other doctrines, tenets, and opinions whatsoever, con- trary to, and inconsistent with the foresaid confession of faith ? *' 4. Are you persuaded that the preshyterian govern- ment and discipline of this churcli are founded upon the word of God and agreeable thereto; and do you promise to submit to the said government and disci- pline and to concur with the same, and never endeavour, Tlieordina- ,. i • t i • t i tiouvoNvs. du'ectly or indirectly, the prejudice or subversion thereof, but to the utmost of your power, in your station to maintain, support, and defend the said disci- pline and preshyterian government by kirk sessions, presbyteries, provincial synods and general assemblies, during all the days of your life ? " 5. Do you promise to submit yourself willingly and humbly, in the spirit of meekness, unto the admonitions of the brethren of this presbytery, and to be subject to them and to all other presbyteries and superior judicatories of this church, where God in his providence shall cast your lot: and that, according to your power, you shall maintain the unity and peace of this church afTainst error and schism, iiotwithstandino; of whatso- ever trouble and persecution may arise — and that you shall follow no divisive courses from the present estab- lished doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this church? " 6. Are not zeal for the honour of God, love to Jesus Christ, and desire of saving souls, your great motives THE MARNOCH INTRUSION. 3^9 and chief inducements to enter into the function of chap. xii. the holy ministry, and not worldly designs and interests? " 7 . Have you used any undue methods, either by yourself or others, in procuring this call? '' 8. Do you engage in the strength and grace of Jesus Christ our Lord and master, to rule well your own family, to live a holy and circumspect life, and faith- fully, diligently, and cheerfully, to discharge all the parts of the ministerial work to the edification of the body of Christ? *' 9. Do you accept and close with the call to be pastor of this parish, and promise through grace, to jDerform all the duties of a faithful minister of the gospel among this people?" Never in the history of the church of Scotland had ^;\*'yehTum. these preo-nant and conscience-searchino* questions wilfdfti'iese . , ^ , . , ° ^ vows were been either i)ut or answered m such circumstances MonMr. 1 Ldrtards. before. A body of men suspended from all their ecclesiastical functions by a sentence of the supreme court of the church, were taking it upon them to impose upon an individual wdio was a sharer in their contumacy and a partaker in their rebellion, those very vows which, in the deliberate judgment of the church, they had themselves already broken, and were again at that moment trampling under foot. They were asking assent to a confession which declares that ''the civil magistrate may not assume to himself the power of the keys" — while they were in the very act of using ^,®e"fy1tcp ''the keys" in defiance of the church, and by autho- tnuiicSof rity and commission from the civil power alone. They were taking an individual bound " to submit himself" to the judicatories of the church, by a deed which was llic v:ord. The contra- ilictiou iUii: trated. 320 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap XII. itself tliG grossest outrage upon the authority of these judicatories. They were inviting him to say that zeal for the honour of God, love to Christ, and desire of saving souls were his great motives and chief induce- ments to enter into the function of the ministry, — though he was entering into it in spite of the prohibi- tion of the church, and the remonstrances of the people. They were proceeding to form the pastoral tie and to invest him with the cure of souls, on the footing of his ''accepting and closing with" a call which he had never received, — a call which the parishioners had not only never given him but which they had refused to give, on the ground that he had neither gifts nor graces to edify their souls. Eight of the nine questions require an answer in the affirmative, — and that answer is usually given by a simple inclina- ^mode''o?»u!' ^^^^^ ^f ^^^^ head. Most men's hearts at such a moment soienm°quet ai'e, or ought to be, too full of a sense of their own I'im. insufficiency for these things — to admit of any other or less humble mode of signifying their assent. It seems, however, that no such distrust oppressed the presentee to Marnoch, — and that, when the more solemn ques- tions were repeated, the word " yes " rung through the church as the prompt and unhesitating reply. There is one question, the 7th in the series, which to be answered suitably, must be met with a *'no." Had he used any undue methods by himself or others to procure the call? ''He replied," says the narrator of the story, who himself was present, — " audibly in the negative. Need we say that a deep shudder ran through the whole assembly at this whole exhibition. -;: -;;- -:j After the accustomed forms had been pro- THE MARNOCH INTRUSION. 321 ceeded with, tlie imposition of hands was gone over, chap. xn. and once more the same suppressed and painful mur- ^slmaderT^ muring ran through the meeting. Men held their de!'^^"''*' breath in awe, and turned from the horrid sickening- scene within, to the cold damp scene without the church, where, however uncomfortable, there was no sacrilege." Few scenes are more interesting or pleasing than that which is ordinarily exhibited at the close of the religious services which accompany a minister's settle- ment in Scotland. The young pastor, attended by two ^atufd™"'' or three of the senior members of the presbytery, takes ["l,.^/- ^''" his station at the church door immediately after the blessing is pronounced, and as the congregation retire, old and young may be seen crowding around, to give him the right hand of welcome, and to assure him that their hearts as well as their doors are open to receive him. But no such reception awaited the unhappy presentee to Marnoch. No man said, " God bless him:" there was none so poor as to do him reverence. " We have seen," says the eye witness who wrote his account of these events a few days after they occurred, " a young minister ordained and welcomed by a religious people, with sincere and earnest prayers for his success, but until Thursday last, we never saw a minister ordained who had no single parishioner, no human being of his charge, to bid him God-speed, and pray for his well-being. So it was, however, with pitiable Mr. Edwards." The tale of the Marnoch intrusion was told from one theMarnodi intiusion end of Scotland to the other. The conduct of the niuve?'' parisliioners awakened everywhere a sympatliy which ' °""" " 322 'THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cnAK XII. expressed itself, not in words only, but in substantial ^puwiclym- deeds. As the traveller now approaches the village ffcUuiit of Marnoch he finds a large and handsome church, aT&e"or ^^^^ ^^^ statelj towcr, and immediately adjoining it a their miuis- iiandsome and commodious parsonage. These were the fruits and are now the memorials of that cordial interest and esteem which the story of their wrongs and of their forbearance called forth towards the people of Marnoch. The parish church still stands on the hill, but the parish families have ceased to go up to it ever since that wintry day when it ceased to be occupied by a minister of the church of Scotland, and passed into the hands of a ministry provided for it by the court of session. The national church, whose principles and whose honour they so nobly upheld in 1841, was in 1843 disestablished like them- selves,-— and they and their minister, have now for six years formed part and parcel of the Free church of Scotland. A few sentences may now suffice to carry this case forward to the general assembly, where at length, in so far as the church was concerned, it received its ^Jf the'c"om- final decisioi;. At the commission of assembly which Marchj^ met at Edinburgh, on the 3d of March, evidence was the'feath'." l^d of the facts charged against Mr. Edwards, and the libel was found 2:>roven. A paper, indeed, was handed in by his agent admitting the truth of the facts libelled, but the paper not being signed by Mr. Edwards, and he not being personally present, the commission could not accept it, and took evidence accordingly in the usual form. A similar paper was also handed in by the agent of the Strathbogie ministers, which for the the Strath, bosie case. THE MARNOCH INTRUSION. 123 sioiitlireaten to meet in Strathl)ogie, of Dr. same reasons was also refused. As the proof in their chap. xn. case could not be taken without great expense in Edinburgh, a motion was made to hold a special The commis meeting of the commission for that purpose in Strath- bogie itself. At this proposition the friends of the ^"^J/eL Strathbogie ministers were greatly alarmed. Dr. £ Bryce assured the commission these ministers ''would come to Edinburgh, and if one motive could lead them to do so more than another, it would be the sinofle circumstance that they would much rather come up here than have the visit of the commission in their parishes." The snows of their own Ben-a-chie could no more stand the dog-days, than moderatism could endure such a wholesale visitation of fervid non-intru- sionists. To abate the alarm which the proposition had produced, and at the same time to make sure of having the case matured for the assembly, it was resolved that the commission should meet again at Edinburgh, on the 17th of the same month, — to receive from the seven ministers their own personal admission of the facts charo-ed aojainst them : and in the event of that admission not being then obtained, that the commission should adjourn to meet at Huntly, on the 21st of April. On the 17th of March, the requisite admission was obtained, signed by the seven ministers and duly attested. They were not entitled, indeed, to disregard the citation of the commission, and to substitute a written document for their own personal T'"'P'*°''f°'" compearance, — but the document was accepted not- withstanding. The whole case was now, therefore, at [^'e'^'^;""?,. length, matured for the judgment of the general Ivrsaii'iTy'.''" assembly. the lihel jixainst the Tlie con- tiiuied sii- pineuess of goveinmei.t in rcjjanl to tliis ques- Unabatcd Iiostility of 1.01(1 ;V'l)cr- dc lu illus- Initud. CHAP. XIII. THE ASSEMBLY AND THE YEAR 1841. While the progress of events was every cLay widening the breach between the two parties in the church, and rendering the interposition of parliament more urgently necessary, neither whig nor conservative statesmen had been making the smallest effort, or showing the slightest disposition, to provide a legislative remedy for evils which menaced the very existence of one of the most important institutions in the land. Early in the session. Lord Melbourne had intimated that his government had no intention of introducing any mea- sure in reference to the question of the Scottish church. The want of parliamentary strength, which had deterred them from meddling with the subject the year before, no doubt operated still more forcibly now, when the indications were daily increasing, that they must soon surrender their places and power into the hands of their political opponents. That these opponents were not becoming more friendly to the church, or its cause, seemed only too certain, from an incident which occurred not very long after that session of parliament began. Agreeably to a recommendation made some time before by a royal commission which had been appointed to visit and report on the Scottish universities, the government had resolved to found a chair of biblical criticism in the university of Edin- burgh, and to endow it out of the revenues of a sinecure office, — that of dean of the chapel royal. There are cal criticis llEV. MR. CANDLISH AND THE PROFESSORSHIP. 325 three such deaneries in Scotland, relics of the episcopal chap. xni. establishment, — and which were understood to be nsually conferred on clergymen whose seniority and standing entitled them to some mark of distinction, — though, in truth, they had been, for the most part hitherto, the rewards of political subserviency. The individual selected for the intended chair was the Rev. TiieRev. Mr. CandlisU Mr. Candlish, — than whom it would perhaps have b^Govt™- been difficult to find within the church any one likely JTro'fcVsor"'^ . ^1 ship of billli- to nave given more eciat to the new ofnce, or to have reflected greater honour, either on the government which created it, or on the university for which it was designed. All the preliminary steps usual in such cases had been already taken, and the appointment, though not formally concluded, was understood to have been finally agreed upon, when Lord Aberdeen suc- ceeded in quashing it, by a violent attack in the house of lords. Mr. Candlish, about a fortnight before, had broken an interdict of the court of session, by preach- ing the gospel, and dispensing divine ordinances, under the authority of the general assembly, within the for- jHestram- bidden territory of one of the Strathbogie parishes. In SataN" doing so he had only been following in the footsteps of Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Gordon, Dr.Makellar, and of almost every other leading minister in the church. The outrage which the interdict involved upon the first principles of religious liberty, was so gross and intolerable, that pains were taken from the very first, to show that the church neither could, nor would give place to it. Her gravest and most godly fathers were sent to resist it, on purpose to show that the breaking of the inter- dict was not to be regarded as the rash and reckless iii(]ii^ii 326 I'HE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. act of impetiioiis youth, or headlong partizanship, — but as the deliberate discharge of a high and sacred duty. And so thoroughly did the common sense and right feeling of the community condemn the obnoxious interdict, that those who applied for and obtained it, had not the hardihood to attempt to enforce it in any one single case. When Mr. Cand- lish preached in Huntly, the interdict had been in existence for a whole year, and in the course of that entire period it had been systematically set at nought : and keeping this in mind, the reader will know how to appreciate the language in which his conduct was denounced by the Earl of Aberdeen. Having; called the attention of the house of lords to ^deL'^attecks the new professorship, " the gentleman," his lordship ment on°this' went ou to Say, ''who gained the appointment had very recently, within these few days, a fortnight or less, committed a most flagrant violation of the law, in his own person : and it would almost appear that he had received this preferment as a reward for his contumacy." His lordship explained that the inter- dict which Mr. Candlish had broken, by preaching in Huntly, was served upon him by the suspended min- ister of the parish, the Rev. Mr, Walker — who *' he understood, was prepared to follow up his claim by petition and complaint to the court, — which was the regular course." Did his lordship contemplate with T^e.s^irit^in alarm Or pain the result which in that case must ensue, — the spectacle of a christian minister dragged from his flock and his family, and cast like a felon into the common jail ? Granting that Lord Aberdeen's sense of what was due to the authority of the civil vliicli his lurdsliip' attack wi made. REV. MR. CANDLISII AND THE PROFESSORSHIP. 327 tribunals miolit not allow him to admit the lawfulness ctiap.xiii. o of, in any case whatever, disregarding their decrees, — '^Jumces"oT that his notions of duty went the full length of what St>ye Neander describes as the doctrine of the Roman ^."^"cnms IIIIIIU. empire, that "the state is the highest ethics" — it could not be denied that for the offence which Mr. Candlish had committed he could at least point to many illustrious precedents, — and could plead in pal- liation of it, considerations not unfitted to tell upon a generous mind. Such considerations, however, seemed to have no weight with Lord Aberdeen. His lordship made himself, and his aristocratic audience, merry with the pleasant prospects of Mr. Candlish. Few read at the time, or will read now, without pain and regret, the words which the public journals ascribe to ni^ionisinp his lordship. The laughter which they were repre- ^euZaldl serited as producing among his hearers, could be only ^^^'t^J'^*!* that mirth into which men are sometimes involuntarily wnSi'ik'' betrayed, and of which, the instant afterwards, they jali.""^""'' feel heartily ashamed. " This reverend gentleman," said Lord Aberdeen, doubtless with his coldest and most cutting sneer, ''this professor of biblical criticism, if dealt with by the court in the same way as any other person, would be immediately sent to prison, where he would have leisure to compose his first syllabus of lectures ! " His lordship gained his end. Lord Normanby, the home secretary, said, indeed, that ** the information which he had received, with respect to the merits of Mr. Candlish, was very different from that which had Lord Nor- been supplied to the noble earl;" but added, that on 1!^"^^, hearing that ''he had placed himself in opposition to mcnt.' lanby gives vithdraws tlie appoint- 328 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. the liiw, tliGj at oiice put an end to all communication with him upon the subject." His lordship could hardly have been ignorant of the fact, that if Mr. Candlish, by simply preaching the gospel in Strath- bogie, had placed himself in oj^position to the law — he had done so by order of the general assembly of the church of Scotland. In these circumstances it would The affair not certainly have been more magnanimous, and more ?he Severe- ° wortliy of tlic sccrctary of state, to have grappled with the assembly itself, — and instead of indulging a poli- tical opponent, by punishing an individual, to have discharged his own duty as the representative and guardian of the civil power, by punishing the real offender, the supreme court of the church. " What is this breach of the law," said the London Record, commenting at the time on these proceedings trLou("im in the house of lords, " of which the Rev. Mr. Record on uel'""''' Candlish is accused ? Our readers are aware that the court of session maintain, in the exercise of all the duties of the sacred ministry, men who are suspended from all those duties by the church which conferred them, and which church is invested by law with the supreme power, in spiritual things, within the realm of Scotland. They are aware, that by the arm of the civil law, they maintain these deposed men in the pulpits, and in the use of all the appendages of the parishes. A gross infringement as the church considers this on her constitutional privileges, and a criminal mockery of sacred things, she can offer no physical resistance to the mailed arm of the civil power. But protesting against the desecration of sacred things thus perpetrated by her contumacious sons and an encroach- REV. MK. CANDLISII AND Tim PROFESSORSHIP. 329 iiig civil court, 'necessity is laid upon her' to provide cuAP.xiir. tor the spiritual wants of the people, by men in jwsses- sion of the ministerial office, and who, accordingly, can administer the sacraments and other ordinances of the sanctuary without a sacrilegious desecration of holy things. The crime of which the Kev. Mr. Oandlish '^^^f^^ has been o-uiltv, as dwelt upon at such lenorth by Lord usiiau'd'co.i- •1 r o ' ^ • • 'Jemns Lord Aberdeen, is that oi periorming this necessary service Aberdeen. under the directions of his church. And where is the churchman, by whatever name he may be called, who does not see in this simple statement of the case, a triumphant vindication of this maligned but faithful servant of God. We pity Lord Aberdeen." Such was the view taken of Lord Aberdeen's part in this affair, by a journal decidedly favourable to that politi- cal party to which his lordship belonged. A few sentences from a paper whose opinions on almost all questionSjboth political and ecclesiastical, were opposed to those of the Record, — a paper keenly oi:)posed to church establishments in o-eneral, and to the reforminor church of Scotland in particular, and a cordial sup- porter of liberal politics — may suffice to show in what light impartial observers regarded the conduct of the government. " Anything more discreditable," wrote the Scottish Pilot, ''and unseemly, from beginning to Remarks of , , , ,,..., the Scottisli end, has not been perpetrated under ministerial sane- puotonthe i A same sub- tion for a long time past. It is very good on Lord •''"*• Normanby's part to say, the rebellious disposition of Mr. Candlish unfitted him for the office; but why delay to say so till the eleventh hour ? Mr. Candlish was as much a rebel last August as he is to-day. Yet Lords Melbourne and Normanby confess, that 330 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLTCT. Chap. XIII. till witlilii a fcw clajs ago, tliey corresponded with Mr. 'pTiouxpoies Candlish in reference to his appointment. What is tioVarnwst this but a confession that their lord advocate has been discreditable ..... ■, . , . ■. , to the neffociatnior, in their name, a barorain which, at the guverumcnt. O O' ^ ' O expense of their pledged word, they cancelled under dread of popular clamour, or through fear of Lord Aberdeen ! " But among the other commentators on this pitiable affair, we must not omit to hear Mr. Candlish him- self. In a letter which, a few days after its occur- rence, he addressed to the Marquis of Normanby, he „ ^ , said — " Your lordship had resolved to confer on me on the^su" the office of professor of biblical criticism in the uni- Nornmnby! verslty of Edinburgh, — an office for which the par- tiality of my friends deemed me well qualified, — and for which they, not I, made application on my behalf. Your lordship's resolution became public, but not through me. I took no step until I received notice from the agents of the church in London, to the effect that a communication had been made to them from the Home-office. It had been intimated to them that my appointment to the deanery, which was to be conferred along with the professorship, had actually taken place, — and that it was necessary merely to have it extracted in due form. I am ignorant of the usual practice in such cases, and I may have erred in concluding prematurely that the matter was definitely fixed. At the same time, I am given to understand 't'l'r-.i.poiiit- that, had the ajxents for the church, instead of corres- ali^imic.' ponding with me, proceeded at once to act upon the message from the Home-office, the deed might have been beyond recall ; and at all events, assuming that IlEV. MR. CANDLISII AND THE PROFESSORSITIP. 33 | government may have the right to cancel a nomination chap.xiii. at the last honr, I cannot but feel some surprise to hear it stated, not only that the appointment in my favour has been suspended and superseded, but that it never was made.'* After alluding to the attempts Lord Aberdeen had made to create a prejudice against him, " by putting into his mouth language regarding c^„^^^^^y,^ the decrees of the court of session which he never LoiTAiIer"^ uttered," — and after stating, in opposition to the con- trary assertions which Lord Aberdeen had ventured to make, that this was *' the only occasion on which he had ever been called to act in disregard of a decree" of the civil court, he proceeded to explain the inter- dict, and to state explicitly that the one he had broken was in every particular the same with that which had been systematically violated by ministers without number for a whole twelvemonth before. But was the violation of that interdict a breach of the law ? " I must remind your lordship," said Mr. Candlish, •^ _ _ _ Reminds '* that the legality or competency of such an interdict n,anb^?[,;t is expressly denied by the church, and that this indeed onSuM-- •, . . . , . . , . diet was tlie is the very point at issue in the constitutional question yeiv point now pending between the ecclesiastical and the civil courts of this country. That question has never yet come under the review of the house of lords, and your lordship, I presume, has no wish to prejudge it. In assuming, however, and summarily concluding, that a breach of the interdict is necessarily a breach of the law, your lordship is virtually doing so." The sus- pended ministers got credit from Lord Aberdeen for forbearing, or at least he took credit to himself, for having persuaded them to forbear, from following up 332 THE TExV YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiakxiii. tlie breach of interdict with a complaint to the court ^bL^raMer"' against the offenders. Forbearance ! It was the very cmii^ng''au(i csscnco of cuuniug and cruelty combined. Availing cruelty o" •,•,«-, . . , . thefuter-^ themselves of their monstrous interdict, to brand as uHrTtiie* breakers of the law those who treated it as Peter and cj.iesion. jg^jj-jgg treated the precisely similar interdict of the Jewish sanhedrim, — they at the same time, by failing to enforce it, deprived those, whom they had thus accused and injured, of all opportunity of meeting them in the courts of law, and of putting the legality of their interdict to the test. " My lord," said Mr. Candlish solemnly, as his letter drew towards a close, " I humbly entreat your lordship to pause ere you finally commit yourself on this momentous question. I ask this, not for my own sake, but for my country's. For myself it is of little consequence whether I preach the gospel in Huntly, or prepare lectures in Calton jail. *^' ?is"S ^ut your lordship may rest assured that there is a has'tiiy principle in this question, and a power, sufficient to stir the country to its utmost depths. It is a vain imagination, my lord, of shallow and short-sighted men, to regard the question as one which may be carelessly cast aside, or settled summarily by an off- hand phrase about the law. It must arouse the atten- tion of statesmen : it may be when it is too late. It is no question of mushroom growth, my lord. There is the strength of centuries in its pith and marrow, and in its veins the life-blood of a nation, of old accustomed to fear God and to honour the king. Vain men may think to stifle and smother the fire which has been kindled, — and knowing little themselves of any principle more stern than the expediency of earthly politics, unskilled warns Lor Nornianliy not ' to commit himself on this great qucstiuii. REV. MR. CANDLISH AND THE PROFESSORSHIP. 333 to calculate the disturbing force of any heavenly or chap.xiii. spiritual element, they may affect to treat the religious spirit, awakened in men's bosoms by God Himself, with the same cold neglect or arbitrary discretion with which they may deal with the more familiar and more ^diuS' oV''*' manan^eable motives of mere worldly interest or ambi- theplwero^f o ^ •/ conscience tion. It were wiser, my lord, and safer to make a nlltus'^wa. timely distinction. It were better to have some faith '"'"'" in the reality of religious principle, and in its power. The dark history of the house of the Stewarts, tells what it is to trifle, or to tamper with, a force that is beyond and above the power of man." The state of feeling in high places, which called forth this letter to Lord Normanby, offered little encouragement to that measure for the settlement of the Scottish church question, of which notice had been given a few days before the letter was published, by the late Duke of Argyll. Lord Aberdeen, who. The mke of ever since the defeat of his own bill, had, unhappilv, auS its pros- l L J ' pects in tlie House of Lords. X J. ^ ' p taken up an attitude of confirmed hostility to the general I assembly, did his utmost to dissuade his Grace from at- tempting to legislate on the subject. It was needless, if the duke would take his lordship's word for it, to speak now of legalizing even the veto-law itself — for nothing would satisfy the extravagance of the non-intru- sionists but the entire abolition of patronage. His Grace, however, had received, he said, other information, in which he was disposed to confide, and, ** unless he were convinced to the contrary, he should feel bound to bring in some measure on the subject." This was on the 5th of March. On the 3d of May, three days before the duke's bill was actually laid on the table of 334 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. xih. tlie lioiise, aiiotliei' attempt, and one still more formal and deliberate, was made to render legislation — witli a view to an amicable settlement — impossible, by driv- Attempt inor mattoi'S to extremities at once. On this occasion iiiadc by ~ f«mii!e"to the movement was headed by Lord Dunfermline. amicable" Tlic foHTier spcakcr of the reformed house of commons settlement . impossible. \ir^^([ YiQ sympathy with the reforming church; and, strange to say, though himself an avowed supporter of dissenting principles, he came forth among the peers of England as the advocate of the crouching erastianisni of Strathbogie. He presented the petition of the suspended ministers, and moved for a copy of the libel to which they were to be called to plead at the bar of the general assembly. In doing so he laboured hard to persuade Lord Melbourne to bring the autho- rity of government to bear on the refractory church, and thus to put down, with the iron-hand of power, her claims to spiritual independence. The premier, how- ever, had no mind to commit himself and his government to so questionable and hazardous an enterprise. "He cCertoin- would not iutroducc a measure which would interfere fmM of law, with the authority and privilege of the general assem- priviieges of bly of tlic cliurcli of Scotlaud." Lord Aberdeen — the Assem- •' ^'^- always at hand when a blow was to be struck at the unhappy non-intrusionists — was not slow in seconding the assault of his political antagonist. " A violent collision," said his lordship, " had taken place, and the utmost confusion and disorder existed. He would not call it rebellion, because men yf^ve accus- LoidAber- touicd to couucct witli rebclliou acts of violence: but dccu siij)- ' attack'of it was not the fault of many of those reverend gentle- fcrmunc. nieu that others were not in open rebellion, and with THE ASSEJIBLY AND THE YEAR 1S41. 335 arms in their hands too, against the execntion of the chap. xiii. hxw, through the inflammatory and seditious harangues with which they had excited the whole country against the decisions of the courts. And this was the state of things which the noble viscount said he could afford to allow to o'o on a little Ioniser."! But the con- Lord aijci-. stitutional vis inertue of Lord Melbourne was not threatened Scottish rc- to be set in motion by a gust of passion. The threat- lleacTedhy ened Scotch rebellion — headed by Dr. Chalmers as mers,does not greatly general-in-chief — was not sufficiently formidable to Lmli'^Mfi- alarm Downing- street, or to create any particular ''°'""''' commotion at the horse guards. It was not the statesman's, but simply the angry controversialist's words, that were ringing through the house of lords, — and the shrewd premier smiled. The Earl of Roden, whose piety enabled him to form a juster estimate both of the men and the principles so harshly condemned by Lord Aberdeen, calmly observed, that '' the observations of the noble and learned lord (Dun- fermline) on the eminent persons he had attacked were, in his opinion, ftxr too strong." With reference LordRodcu to the charge Lord Aberdeen had brought with so cimrch, nmi o _ " replies to iu much keenness against the government, that their "«'='''=""*• church patronage had been habitually exercised in favour of non-intrusionists. Lord Roden thoudit it " the highest compliment to the ministry they had ever received." His lordship's experience in Ireland had taught him the difference between a moderate and an evangelical clergy. The attempt to precipitate a collision between the state and the church having failed, and the door being, in conse<|uence, still left open for a legislative 336 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cha^iii. adjustment of the question in dispute, the Duke of ^^.Sfbriif-'s Ai'gyll brought in a bill framed for this purpose, on Gth o'f May!' the 6th of Maj. The ancient and honourable house of which his Grace was the existing head, was insepa- rably identified with the struggles of the church of Scotland. Twice had it given a martyr to the cause of Scotland's covenanted reformation; and now, therefore, when some of the very chiefest of those great principles, in support of which so much precious blood had been shed two centuries before, were once more in danger of being overborne, there was a peculiar fitness in the fact that a defender of these principles should have been found in the person of Maccallum-more. His Grace's bill was substantially a repetition of the church's veto-law of 1834. The chief differences between them were these — first, that the bill extended The nature of the rig-lit of vcto from male heads of families commu- Ihe bill and o ifoifs°''' nicants, to all male communicants above twenty-one years of age; and, second, that it made a distinct provision for setting aside the veto in every case in which it should be proved that the opposition was due to factious and causeless j)rejudice. In the very intelligent and judicious statement with which his Grace prefaced the introduction of the bill, he took his stand upon the non-intrusion principle, as having been, from the period of the reformation, an essential article in the constitution of the Scottish church. *' No attempt," said his Grace, '' was ever made in His Grace's auy of tliosc acts of parliament which adopted the introducing cliurcli of Scotlaud as the national one, and conferred )iis bill. her endowments, to fetter the exercise of this prin- ciple. The act of Queen Anne, indeed, as nov/ THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL IN PARLIAMENT. 337 interpreted by the Aucliterarder decision, had set that chap. xin. principle altogether aside, and this was the very reason which both justified and required the adoption of such a measure as that which we were now laying upon the table of the house." To satisfy their lordships that his bill would really meet the case and put an end to the painful conflictwhich nowagitated the church of his na- tive country, his Grace read letters from Drs. Chalmers, nis Grace Gordon, and others, and also a communication from froVDrs.'" -. . . • c Chalmers, the non-mtrusion committee of the general Assembly, ^ordou, &c. The duke, while referring to these proofs of the support which his bill would receive in Scotland, noticed in passing the whisper which had reached his ears, that the fact of his bill being favoured by the church of Scotland would be an argument, not for it, but against it, in the house of peers : — " He could not believe that a prejudice, at once so injurious to that venerable church and her clergy, and so unworthy of their lord- ships, would be for a moment allowed to influence the decision to which their lordships would come on this important subject." His Grace reminded the house how grievously the practical suppression of the non- intrusion principle, by the arbitrary proceedings of the general assembly, had, during the preceding century, "otkeftle weakened the Scottish church establishment, by ["•'thescot- •^ tisli Cliurcli by the arlji- trary exer- cise of the riglit of atroiiage driving into secession large bodies of its members. Should such a bill as that which he now proposed be withheld, he forewarned their lordships that " a alli-inglst ^ , century, still larger number of the members of the establish- ment would secede from it." " The mischiefs," he added, ** which must ensue from such a division in the church were too evident to require that he should 338 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. do iiiore tliaii allude to tliem." In tlie discussion wliicli followed, the duke was supported by the Earl of Rosebeny — a nobleman who, though unconnected with the church of Scotland, has, on every occasion where its interests and honour were concerned, mani- fested towards it, in his place in parliament, a most friendly spirit; and also by the Marquis of Breadal- The support- bauo and by the Earl of Roden. He was opposed, with oppmJentf at Icast CQual cordiality, by Lords Dunfermline, Had- ofthebiU. -, .1 T T 1 • 1 dington, and Aberdeen. In his eagerness to damage the bill in the estimation of his fellow-peers. Lord Aberdeen put various cases by way of showing what monstrous results might be expected to come out of it. The following is a specimen: — *' Again, a presentee Extovagant i;i;iiglit bo objcctcd to, mcrcly bccause he was compelled LOTd Aber- to talvC tlie oatli of allegiance, and still the presbytery damage the would bc bouud to Tciect him. Was it to be tolerated bill. '' that anything so monstrous should be sanctioned by parliament!" Did his lordship ever hear of such an objection being made against a minister by mem- bers of the churcli of Scotland ? Was it candid to insinuate into the minds of the English aristocracy a prejudice, not against the duke's bill only, but against his countrymen, so utterly groundless ? But had it been even within the limits of rational belief that such an objection would ever exist anywhere except in the mind of one who was determined, with or without reasons, to veto his Grace's bill, nothing but the heat or haste in which his lordship spoke could have blinded him to the fact, that under that bill the presbytery would not only not have been bound to reject the presentee, but would most certainly have been bound THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL IN PARLIAMENT. 139 to reject the objection itself. The bill having been chap.xiii. read a first time, it was agreed that the further con- sideration of it should stand over till after the general assembly. That assembly met at Edinburgh in St. Andrew's Meeting of ir^TVT T T '■''^ General church, on the 20th oi May. Its moderator was the ^gip'^^y"'' Rev. Dr. Gordon, a man whose dignity of character peculiarly fitted him to preside, in so grave an emer- gency, over the supreme council of the church. Com- bining the graces of piety with the resources of a pro- The modera. found and comprehensive intellect, — the learning of a 'i°n- divine with the firmness of a confessor, — the benignity of a father with the candour of a judge, — he possessed, in a pre-eminent degree, those qualities which inspire confidence and command esteem. Wide asunder as the poles though the two parties were, whose momen- tous discussions were about to begin, they were entirely at one in the choice of their moderator. It was by an election, as cordial as it was unanimous, that he was called to the chair. The first act of the assembly was the striking' off from the roll the names „ 1 .,..,, , . , . , . The Assembly or three individuals, whom, with consistent audacity, ftnuesoff ' ' J ' tlie roll the the seven suspended ministers, sitting in presbytery by "eSp're- warrant of the court of session, had sent up to repre- commis- sent them in the general assembly of a church whose « pretended o J Pj-esbytery authority they were treating with systematic scorn, bofie"''"'" The business which engao-ed the attention of the court was of the usual multifarious kind, — but the matters which rose prominently above the rest, were those that were immediately connected with the great conflict of the church. The leading debates were those which were occupied with the law of patronage, y2 340 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cnAP^iii. the Duke of Argyll's bill, and the deposition of the '^leading^ Strathboglo ministers. That which came first in order uiis'As°sem- was the debate on the law of patronage. The overtures fi''\-^^\ for the abolition of that law, which had come up from abolition of J- patronage. jj^r^j-jy ^f ^\^q infcrlor churcli judicatories, having been called for, the Rev. Mr. Cunningham rose to address the house. Since the time when his brief but trenchant speech, in 1833, first startled the comfortable and complacent advocates of the old corrupt system from their dreamy repose, both the cause of anti-patronage and its champion had won a place for themselves, broad and conspicuous, on the field of ecclesiastical discussion. The cause was now no longer the forlorn hope of a feeble and despised minority, — but a watch- word which rallied around it half the forces of the churcli. After shortly noticing the peculiar circum- stances in which the question now came before them, Mr. Cunningham read his motion, which was in the Cunning- followinff tcmis : — " The general assembly havinfy ham's mo- _ O O J n tion. considered the overtures anent patronage, resolve and declare, that patronage is an evil and a grievance ; has been attended with great injury to the interests of religion, and is the main source of the difficulties in which the church is now involved, and that its aboli- tion is necessary, in order to put the whole matter of the appointment of ministers on a right and permanent basis.*' The speaker quoted from the address to the parliament of 1649, by the general assembly of that day, this important statement : — "' All things that fromtiie coucem tlic nomination, and choice, and calling of address to ^ ? o EftheTs"-* ministers, arc given of God to the people and presby- ifitt/" tery. We do not anywhere read in the New Testa- THE ANTI-PATRONAGE DEBATE. 34^ ment that any other had any hand in any part of their ^"^'' ^"^• calling. Now, suppose the nomination and choice to belong either to the people or to the presbytery severally, or to both of these jointly, or by mutual con- sent, IT ALWAYS FOLLOWS that the patron's nomination and choice of the minister takes it away from those to whom it is given of God ; and therefore patron- ages and presentations of kirk are sinful and unlawful." The address from which these words are taken bears attached to it the honoured names of Samuel Ruther- autcheTto ford, John Livingstone, and others, — men surpassed by none either for learning or godliness. In the course of his masterly argument, Mr. Cunningham put his case in the following terms: — "This is the substance of our position, that patronage is a plant which our heavenly Father hath not planted, and which must, therefore, be rooted out. We would like to receive from our opponents a distinct negative MI'S-" to this : we would like to hear them say, that it ts a argument plant which our heavenly Father hath planted ; we p^^^^^g*^ would like to hear them say, that He hath planted it any other way than as evil is permitted, and as the man of sin is permitted to have power in the world." Mr. Cunningham said he had seen the scripture argument against patronage " nibbled at, evaded, carped at;" but that he had never seen it ''fairly and strongly met." In this respect the dis- cussion of 1841 produced nothing new; the debate abounded in the argimientuinadhominetn, — inelaborate nentsdouot attempts to show that Mr. Cunningham and his friends ^^^J^^'"- were chargeable with great inconsistency in submitting to a system which they held to be at variance with 342 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xni. God's word; but no one undertook to face his asser- tion with a negative and to maintain the contrary proposition. It has been ah-eady mentioned that the progress of events had been serving of late more and more to disgust the mind of Dr. Chalmers with the law of patronage, and to prepare him to look — if not with strong desire, at least with considerable Dr. Chalmers complacency — on the possible overthrow of the fe°arsto'be entire svstem. His si)eech on this occasion was frroundless " ^ . , . man'^cM-' accordiugly occupied, to a large extent, m showing the'aboiifion how groundlcss were those fears, which the very agr''°"" prospect of such an event awakened in many minds. Dr. Makellar said, that if " the hopes which he entertained from the bill which his grace the Duke of Argyll had introduced were to be disappointed, and that no efficient, adequate restriction, or no proper regulation of the exercise of patronage were to be afforded, Mr. Cunningham would find him, in the humble exercise of his powers, and to the extent of his energies and opportunities, resolute to contend for the same object." But meanwhile, under the influ- ence of a conviction that to issue a declaration against patronage at present would weaken the duke's hands, Dr.Makci- aud hiudcr the passing of his bill, — he. Dr. Makellar, ment""" ' gaid lic would move as an amendment, that '* it does not appear for the interests of the church and people of Scotland to adopt" Mr. Cunningham's motion. Dr. Cook preferred another and stronger amendment of his own — that the overtures against patronage should be dismissed. He denied that the state, in setting up a law of patronage, interfered at all with the rights of congregations, — because if they did not like THE ANTI-PATRONAGE DEBATE. 343 the state's terms, they were free to worship elsewhere chap. xiii. than in the state's churches. *'I don't interfere with °pe*^chyhis their christian rio^hts," said Dr. Cook, speakinor for iightTofthe . " i O clnistian the civil power, "" " """ "-'■ " if they do not wish to p'=°p''=- come here, they will still have the same opportunity of worshipping God and learning divine truth which they had before ; and if it is their opinion that their spiritual state will be more advanced by remaining as they were, I leave them at perfect liberty." This was obviously and altogether beside the question which Mr. Cunningham had raised, — Was patronage a scrip- tural system ; was there any precept or principle in God's word to sanction the vesting in any man, or body of men, or in the state itself, a right to nomi- nate the ministers of a christian church, merely on the oTOuiid of a certain secular qualification? Dr. i)r cook -ivT m • misses the Cook attempted to show that the New Testament is g«intofMr. not explicit as to the mode of electing ministers; but he made no effort to prove that it anywhere recog- nizes the right of election as being other than a ^\>\vi- tual right, to be exercised in virtue of spiritual quali- fications alone. It was not a question between elec- tion by the many, and election by the few; nor was it a question between election by the rulers, and elec- tion by the members of the church. Admitting that there might be some room for argument on points like these, they were not the points in discussion. These various modes of proceeding, however they differed in other respects, agreed at least in this — that they left the election of the minister luithm the church. Mr. Cunningham's grand objection against patronage was — that it took the election out of the unmng- liani's scrip- ture argu- ment. 344 THE TEN TEARS' CONFLICT. Chap xiii. church; for granting that the patron may be a member Scripture^ of the church, it is not as a member of the church, nefted'^th bat solely as the possessor of a certain civil right, of nfii^isters that lio cliooscs tlic niluister. For auythinof in the within the ^ a pakonage l^w of patronago, he may not only be no member of mosrimpov- thc church, but he may be a man whom no church, tant of tliesc -it-i • it'T it rights ttiiiA- regulated by a scriptural disciphne, could receive Church, ^itiiin her pale. Dr. Cook would not venture to bring the matter to the test of scripture at all ; and his reason for declin- ing to do so is not unworthy of notice. It throws much light on the principles of moderatisra. " A great principle is laid down," he remarked, " that nothing must be done contrary to the word of God; but then, there are a vast number of arrangements established in the christian world, and which every christian reveres and observes, that are left totally indefinite, so that we have a variety of churches, a variety of establishments, a variety of forms of estab- lished governments, — under all of which, I hope I may safely assert, the power and the influence of divine truth may be experienced. I maintain, that if you ■'iJbjection go to scripture, and found upon scripture for anything takingscrip. that is Said with respect to the election of a minister, ture as tlie '- ''*'<^- and with respect to patronage or against it, — if you go to this, then you must take this along with you, that there must be one and the same definite construction for all things ; and if you are to follow out the principle, and say that we shall not consider as binding upon ministers anything but what is explicitly and precisely laid down in the word of God, I say you will alter the state of the christian world entirely, and so alter it as THE ANTI-PATRONAGE DEBATE. 345 to tend in a fatal degree to destroy and corrupt chap.xiii. religion." The substance of this singular statement, — vague, loose, and latitudinarian throughout, — appears to be this — that the institutions and arrange- ments of Christendom will not stand the application ^rubwoi^ir of a scripture test, and that, therefore. Dr. Cook mrny™'isr could not commit himself to a principle by which so and there-' many existing things would be condemned. He would not hiHe'it. not apply it to patronage, because he was not prepared to apply it universally: to do so would be, in his judgment, to injure religion. True, indeed, the appli- cation of the principle would make wild work in that " variety of churches, church establishments, and forms of church government " which we have in the world; for, unhappily, those conventional rules and views of expediency which Dr. Cook seemed to consider sufficient for disposing of the question of patronage and the election of ministers, are the only authorities which could be pleaded for a very large proportion of the ecclesiastical arrangements that have hitherto prevailed. But it is no legitimate argument against a principle that, if carried out, it will come in tms no argu- IT • • 1 • • 1 • 11 n Ti mentagaiiist collision with many existinor thinors; and least of all, a principle: J <:^ O ' ' and especi- is this a valid objection to anything that can be shown fp^dnSe* to be a principle of God's word. Mr. Cunningham word. ' affirmed that God's word repudiated patronage. If that assertion was well founded, it would not do for Dr. Cook to complain of the wide range over which such a conclusion would carry him. But though Dr. Cook, in his peculiar mode of dealing with the scrip- ture argument, could find nothing like a principle on the subject of the election of ministers in the bible. 346 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.xiii. he found such a principle elsewhere: — " Is there no principle which may be affirmed with respect to the election of a minister ? There is. There is a right conferred by God, and which I take leave to call one ^J-rindpi of the original rights of mankind. I hold that every i)r"9ooki7 man, in his individual capacity forming a part of a fiHodettef voluntary association, has it in his power to elect his thel- office- own minister : he is entitled to choose the mode of worship he approves, and with regard to that, I say, that if there is any invasion upon it, — if there is any act of government declaring to any man that they will shut him out from this great and high privilege, I say that government, in so far, is a system of despotism and oppression." But government, according to Dr. Cook, leaves him the full enjoyment of this " great ''stateir" ^ and hio-li privileoje," so loner as it tells him that he serves; be- . . . i)Tcoor^ may have it by leaving his parish church! The hav°Tby theory is in perfect keeping with those erastian prin- Natiofai ^ ciples which Dr. Cook and his friends, in common Churcli. ^ with the courts of law, maintained. It is a theory which first reduces the church to the level of a mere voluntary association, and then brings down any right or privilege which it may possess to a simple jus humanum, — as good, but no better, than the title which men have to enjoy the rights and privileges of a society which they have formed themselves. Lower the cliurch to this position, — remove it from the high and sacred elevation which it occupies when recog- Theargu. uizcd as out aud out a divine institution, — degrade it inent lowers . . . tije Church into a mere voluntary society or state corporation, and formed'" tlicrc is uo lougcr any difficulty in subjecting it to mmauso. ^^^^^^ coutrol. Outhc otlicr hand, concede to it its THE ANTI-PATRONAGE DEBATE. 347 true character as a kingdom not of this world, — as the chap. xiii. house of God upon earth, — a society founded and governed by its divine Head and Lord, — and the utterly untenable nature of Dr. Cook's argument in defence of patronage will at once appear. If the ^be'a 01" church be a divine institution, the state is no longer ius'lmr"' Ti TTtr Ml 1 • competent at liberty to say — We will grant or not grant this or J° |^'i^,^|^'^f^^^ that privilege to its members. If Christ has given fe^g^efromits them a right to have a voice in the choice of their wSchmt . . . li^s giveu ministers, the state is not entitled to take that right "^em. away. It is not at liberty to set up a church, curtailed of its scriptural rights, and then to tell the people, — It is- true, you cannot have all the privi- leires of a bible church in that which we have established ; but you may have them by withdrawing from its communion and forming a church of your own! ''If there is to be a national church at all," said Mr. Makgill Crichton, replying to Dr. Cook in '^S"'" a speech full of j^ointed and powerful argument, — "it reply to Dr. ought to be pure in its doctrine, free and unfettered in its spiritual liberty, and thus calculated to embrace the general population. While liberty of conscience should be preserved inviolate, and all left free to con- form or dissent as they see fit, the national church ought to be restricted and crippled, by no conditions calculated to repel the people from her communion.'* Ao-ain, referrinjr to the statement of Dr. Cook, and to which Dr. Chalmers had given some countenance, viz., that scripture laid down no rule as to the mode of electing ministers, — the same speaker justly observed, that the doctrine of scripture, upon many important points, is as clearly indicated in great general prin- 348 I'H^ ™^ YEARS' CONFLICT. ci.AP.xiii. ciples as if it liad been expressly set forth in particular commands. '' Hath not our Lord declared that his church is a free and spiritual kingdom? and does it not clearly follow, that it is inconsistent with the ^ofVitronage csscutial uaturc of that kingdom to vest the choice Inxh'thT" and appointment of its spiritual teachers and pastors freedom and , of chS ^® ^ secular right, — as a mere piece of worldly mer- kiiigdom. chandise, to be bought or sold or inherited? Is it consistent with the purity of the church, or with the spiritual liberty of Christ's people, that the sacred trust of electing pastors should not only be taken from the members of the church, but so disposed as common worldly property, that all its holders may be, — and in fact the great majority are, — either alien or hostile to her communion. Sir, I have to enter my complaint that my venerated friend. Dr. Chalmers, has to-day given the sanction of his great name to this fallacy, that in Complains of tliG matter of the appointment of ministers, the patron merS' aiid tlic pcoplc arc to be placed in the same category, patron and aiid that evlls as great may result from the popular elec- peopleinto ^ _ _ O J ^ i i cttego^^ tion of ministers as from the operation of lay patronage. thediffeT- One would think that we advocate a system of univer- sal sulfranfe in the election of ministers. Sir, it is not so. There is a high religious qualification necessary, in order to the enjoyment of the privilege. The electors are exclusively those who, after due inquiry as to moral character, and due examination as to knowledge and principles, have been received into full communion with the church. Can it then for an instant be admitted, that the voice of the congregation, speaking by the majority of its communicants, in a matter of such dear and sacred interest to themselves eiice. THE A NTI- PATRONAGE DEBATE. 349 and to their children, is entitled to no more weight ciiap.xtii. than the voice of my lord or squire, himself an alien to our church, who may dictate to the people their future pastor. Sir, I proclaim such a statement to be a libel upon my countrymen, the christian people of Scotland: and I record my conviction that under the jDopular election of ministers, resting as it does upon the basis of sound principle, there will not be found a tithe of the evils which flow from lay patron- ao-e/ ' After a lonor discussion, in which Dr. Makellar's Tiie speakers p O ' ^ in the de- views were supported by Dr. Patrick M'Farlan and '"'^''• Mr. Earle Monteith, those of Dr. Cook, by Dr. Bryce and Mr Robertson of Ellon, and those of Mr. Cun- ningham by Mr. Christie of Durie, and Mr. Candlish, the matter was at length brought to a vote. Dr. Cook's amendment having been put against that of Dr. Makellar, the former was carried by a majority D,,cook's of 11 : the numbers being 120 to 109. A division was purtlrsT" ' 1 . against Dr. then taken upon Dr. Cook's amendment put against i^J;i''^";i!;^j Mr. Cunningham's motion, — and the moderate leader Sn"tlir. was ao"ain the victor: the numbers beino-for the motion imm'smii. O '^ tion iiiicl 135, and for the amendment 138. In 1833 the odds '^'™^'^- in favour of patronage were very diff'erent. That year the majority was, as near as possible, four to one. Now, the votes were all but equally balanced. The Auchterarder case, and the Marnoch intrusion, and the countless encroachments of the courts of law, had been rapidly bringing back the church to the ground ^tKnti5 of the second book of discipline, that patronage was t^Timca " one of the special heads of reformation " to be craved — and which " ought not now to have place in this light of reformation." 350 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cha^iii. On the following day, the assembly took up the ''Sl^'bm consideration of the Duke of Argyll's bill. It was i.yTlpMt'of brought before the house by the report of the non- mitteT"'" ii^t^'usion committee, which was laid upon the table by Dr. Makellar. The debate upon the bill was opened by Mr. Candlish, in a speech so full of conciliation, candour, and generosity, — a speech which appealed so powerfully to all the better feelings of men's hearts, — that for once the heat of controversy was allayed, and for a moment it almost seemed as if, on this question at least, the two parties were about to be at one. Nor was there anything extravagant or unreasonable Generous ill tlic liope that sucli a result might have been realized. uTcaM ^^^ ^^^^ minority of the assembly concurred with the impin'^ majority in supporting the bill, it would in all proba- thrhouse" bility have obtained the sanction of parliament. The application of a united church could not well have been refused. Lord Aberdeen, in all probability, would no longer have put his powerful veto upon the measure, had that of his allies in the general assembly been withdrawn. Such a concession may, to him indeed, have seemed to be a price too large to pay, even for the peace and integrity of the church of Scot- land; but he would hardly have refused to make it, had it been requested by his own friends, — and they at least, it might surely have been thought, could scarcely be either blind or indifferent to the conse- quences of its being refused. They had better means than were possessed by aristocratic statesmen and busy politicians in London, of estimating the actual dangers of the church, and of judging what was necessary to remove them. They knew that with DEBATE ON DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL. 35 2 tlieir opponents in the assembly, the principles con- C"ap. xiii. tended for were matters of conscience and religious ^\he modw'^ faith, which they could not yield, save at the expense mfj-Firhave of such a destruction of their own character, and such fitpi'^ten ' to Mr. Ciind- conse(|uent damage to the church herself, and to the i'*'''^ '^pp^ai- cause of God in the land, as no christian mind could contemplate without the utmost grief and alarm. They knew, moreover, that, excepting that shameful issue, there neither was, nor could be any other alter- native for the majority of the general assembly, — in the event of such a legislative settlement as the Duke of Argyll's bill contemplated, not being obtained, — but to abandon the establishment, and to expose themselves and their families, it might be, to poverty and want. They also knew that on their own side, there were no such formidable hazards to be encountered by main- taining their peculiar views, nor any such difficulties to be confronted in the event of their giving way. It was to cost them nothing whether they voted for or against the bill. The rejection of it by parliament might more than half empty the general assembly, it wnuui cost and shake to its very foundations the national church, ingtoac ■^ _ •' cept the bill. — but it would not touch a hair of their own heads : ^3^" it would neither rifle their pockets nor oppress their geiicaTparty consciences. The adoption of it, on the other hand, EstabUsh- i- ' ' meiit. while it would keep the assembly and the church entire, would accomplish this end, simply by restoring an order of things which they had found perfectly tolerable before, and would have found perfectly tolerable again. It was on the ground of such consi- derations as these, Mr. Candlish rested his powerful and touching appeal. 352 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. r^^iQ earlier part of his speech was chiefly occupied with an exposition of the bill itself, which he showed to be in substantial harmony with the principles of the church, both as to non-intrusion and spiritual independence. The motion he had proposed consisted Tiieresoiu- of a scrics of resolutions — the first of which declared it po"edb7Mr. to be the determination of the assembly to adhere to the CandlisU. . . . , , . . non-intrusion prniciple, and to acquiesce in no arrange- ment by which that principle was not fully recognized. The second resolution embodied an approval of the Duke of Argyll's bill, as being fitted to " provide for the maintenance and practical application of the prin- ciple of non-intrusion as asserted by this church:'* and as being a measure '* which this church may receive as consistent with that fundamental principle, and which, if passed into a law, would be received with thankfulness, as an important boon to the church and the country, and that the church and country are under deep obligation to his Grace the Duke of Argyll for this new proof of that enlightened patriotism and zeal, which have distinguished the illustrious family whose name is honourably enrolled among Scotland's martyrs and confessors." Mr. Candlish did not, of course, either ask or ^iar?eJoiu-' cxpcct thc Riinority of the assembly to concur in either spectof of these resolutions ; but there was another which he whioli lie app'iauothe was wilHug to put Separately from the rest, and in p"uty!"^^ which he did feel himself warranted to express a hope that they might find it possible to concur. '' Before reading the third resolution," he said, " I beg, with all deference, to appeal to my friends on the other side, as also to all within this house — whatever their THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL. 353 views maybe — who desire the peace and prosperity chap-xiif. of our Zion ; and if means could be found to separate this resolution from the rest, so as to make it consist- ent with the principles of the party on the other side of the house to support it, I should not be without hope of the most blessed results. "' "' * I would ms appeal to beseech my friends on the other side of the house — atep^uty. setting aside all irritating feelings, — putting aside, for the present, the painfully afflicting case in which we shall be engaged to-morrow, and confining myself entirely to the point of non-intrusion — I would calmly put it to the house to consider the difference, in respect to principle, between our side and many, at least, on theirs. They, I believe, will give us full credit for conscientiousness of opinion ; and the same credit I give to them. Frankly I concede to them, that as we cannot concur in the soundness of their views, so they cannot concur in the soundness of ours, and that they cannot share in the responsibility of having our views carried practically into effect. I admit frankly that our friends are conscientiously disabled fi*om ^,^^ p^^j^^^^^ undertakinor the responsibility of passino- the measures "o,'on.intru. ... ° / - . . r Tnp 1 sion, of the which we propose; but there is a point oi ditierence be- evangelical iween us, — we have taken up our position, whether right or wrong, — we never will abandon the principle of non-intrusion, in our sense of the term, — we never can abandon the principle that reclaiming congregations shall, in all cases, be saved from the intrusion of unacceptable ministers. Now, just for once, let me put it to my friends to dismiss from their minds the irritating topic of our having taken up a position as rebels ; we say that we are not in that position, and 354 THE TEN YEARS' COxXFLICT. Chap. XIII. my frieiids, I am sure, will do me tlie justice to admit that we are able to urge a plausible defence against the allegation. "''' " "" They seem to think that we, on this side of the house, have a sort of liking for ^^•fipInT"* the position in which we stand, I entreat them to for the" °'° believe that they are 2:rievouslY mistaken, — we have hazards of , JO i r i ik,n^^°''* ^^^ wish to covet or to court the glory of martyrdom ; and however willing we may be to endure the reproaches that have been heaped upon our heads, let not our friends suppose that this is a position in which we exult and rejoice, as if it were a desirable position ; and that we delighted in it the more, the more we were abused. No, but the difficulty of our position consists in this, that we can neither get relief by going out of the church, as is proposed by some, nor can we get relief by submitting to the law, as is proposed by others. These two remedies have been proposed — I say not in what spirit — they have been proposed by the enemies of our church from without, and, I grieve to say, are often proposed by our friends and brethren within. If the matter were indeed per- sonal to myself, I should be grateful and glad for the relief, if I could escape from the difficulties which surround us by either of these two ways. If I were to leave the church of my fathers, I could worship God elsewhere ; if I were to relinquish my position in the ifitwerca established church, I know that I could serve the Lord Jesus elsewhere, and preach the gospel of His grace in any part of the earth, and might be rid of the Tlie taunts thrown out against mere per- sonal matter Mr. Cand- lish would be glad to relieve liim- scll of all fui'tlicr an- sciiofaii embarrassments that now vex my peace and hinder quitting 'tL iiiy pastoral work. If, again, I were to bring myself raent." ' to subuilt to the law, I, even I, rebel as I am, and THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL. 355 taunted as siicli in tlie high places of the land, is it to chap. xin. be supposed that I am insensible to the evils that I suffer, — evils affecting my character and my peace, which no man can endure with patience — set up as a mark for the press and for peers to aim at, that I would clinsf to such a position if I could leave my 0 i- •'He cannot do post of duty? but I cannot do this, and again I entreat "e\uw wuh the house to consider our position. I admit our '""'"*y- friends on the other side can have no hand in the responsibility of passing this measure ; but I put it to many of them whether it is not a measure which, passed into a law, they might acquiesce in, they might submit to, they might act under in concert and harmony with us. When the veto act was passed, my brethren (opposite) did not approve of it ; they resisted it, and they afterwards sought its repeal. I admit that in all this they acted right, — according to their own views of duty; but when it was passed they had no difficulty in shows that actino; under it, they had no scruples in orderinjr the correspond- O 'J _ ■>■ o ing difficulty settlement of ministers according to that law. I ask ili'^onhe" them if this were again to become the law of the land, pun"'^ ^ if they will not assist, at least they will submit to, its passing. They might agitate for the repeal of the veto (that is, for the repeal of it by the church because of its not having the sanction of civil law), they might seek to convince the church she had done wrong ; but suppose the church to obtain the permission of the legislature to act in that way in which she holds it to be her duty to act, I say, would it be inconsistent in them to acquiesce in this settlement of the affairs of our beloved church? If means could be found to obtain this expression of opinion from our friends z2 35G THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xiii. opposite, — tliat while they wash their hands of all responsibility in the matter, while they do not think the church is right to ask it, while they hold to their objections, yet that if it is passed into a law it will ^artVg°^er Hot offond their consciences to act under it; by such noto''pposins a Statement they will prove themselves the most t)ie Duke's . . ^'"- generous, the most disinterested, the most seasonable benefactors the church ever saw. The time has now come when our friends may be expected to make such a statement. As long as this matter was not involved as it now is, — while matters stood as they did a year or two ago, — I admit they might stand aloof and say nothing ; but now, in the critical position in which the church is placed — a position so critical that none on our side of the house, however desirous of seeing anti- patronage carried to morrow, would refuse to take The critical nou-intrusion to day — in such a position our friends dmrchrei^ arc imperatively called upon, for the sake of Z ion's at'their " peaco, to Say whether, if this bill were passed into a law, both parties might not act in concert under it." The solemnity and tenderness of feeling which this winning and noble address had produced was both so universal and so manifest, that the speaker could not refrain from giving expression to the sentiments of devout thankfulness which it awakened in his breast. *' I rejoice that I have been the humble instrument under God of bringing the house to its present state of mind, which — I say it with all humility — is better cmigrTtu^''' than I ever saw it before; and I shall indeed rejoice iiouseonthc if i[iq feelinof which now pervades the house shall o'ive stiteoffeel- O i o inlinT'^' the key to the whole discussion; and if so, under the blessing of God, w^e know not what may be the result. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL. 357 I say this in no spirit of argument or of controversy, chap. xiu. I am speaking under a weight of responsibiUty deeper than I ever felt before, I am speaking under an appre- hension of the impending calamities with which our beloved church is threatened." The particular resolution on the adoption of which Mr. Candlish designed his appeal to bear, he now read to the house. It was in the folio wino- words: — o " That the present difficulties of this church are of so serious and alarming a character, that a measure fitted ^tion fw"' to put an end to the collision, now unhai)i}ily subsist- TsksViaesup. . , 1 . -T 1 1 • • 1 . port of the mo; between the civil and ecclesiastical courts in n'o^erate o party. reference to the settlement of ministers, ought to unite in its support all who feel that they could conscien- tiously submit to its operation if passed into a law." Although the house adjourned at the close of this remarkable speech, the impression it had made was found to be still fresh and strong when the debate was resumed in the evening. The tone which it had given to the discussion was maintained throughout, and ^".1. was perceptible, indeed, in all the subsequent proceed- ings of that assembly. Unfortunately, however, it led to no practical result. The speakers on the side of the minority reciprocated the calm and conciliatory language of Mr. Candlish, but they opposed the bill. The motion of Mr. Candlish having been seconded by Mr. Buchan of Kelloe, Dr. Brunton rose and said, Debate re. •' . . . ^ ^ sunicd. ])r. he " desired to imitate the spirit in which Mr. fp'^'J^J""'' Candlish had addressed the house." At the same time he spokeof*' a difference between the sentiments of the heart and the convictions of the understanding," which seemed to imply that he was not prepared to 358 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciAP.xiiL act in the way proposed. Dr. Hill was more explicit, though not less mild in giving expression to his views. Dr.mnaa- He was filled with ''admiration of the manner in candWs which this discussion was opened by Mr. Candlish;'* spirit, but ^ . _ declines to^ but hls aduiiratiou did not carry him so tar as to sup- resoiution. ^^^^ ^|^^ Tesolution. It did not seem, indeed, that there was anything, in his views of the bill, that should have hindered him from giving to it that negative sup- port for which Mr. Candlish pleaded. ''If that bill," he said, " had come from her majesty's ministers, or high legal authorities, they would have been bound to support it; but he could not overlook the small support the Duke of Argyll was receiving. He had scarcely contemplated the possibility of the bill being presented to the assembly. We had only to look at the proceed- ings of last year to see that this bill would not pass a Dr.Hiu second readino-. It mifflit be compared with Lord thinks tliere ° ° , ^ . isnocimnce Abcrdeeii's bill. That bill had met with no counte- of the Duke's and the'e'."' nance here or in the house of lords. It did not pass opposes it. in the latter, because it gave too much power to the ecclesiastical courts. It interfered too, with the rights of patrons. Now what was the character of the bill before us ? It interfered still more with the rights of patrons, and it gave still more power to the church courts. If the chancellor of England had exclaimed against Lord Aberdeen's bill, how much more would he exclaim against the present one." Dr. Hill was also of opinion, though he failed to acquaint the assembly with his reasons for being so, that the bill would not serve to extricate the church from the difficulties of her position. " It would etfect nothins," he said, "for the removal of these difficul- iibaiulon the veto-law. This the grand puna- THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL. 359 ties;" but lie added, '^let the assembly declare that chaf. xni. she abandons the veto-law, and the affections of the ^]';ve"tir"''^ people would flow towards them, and we would all unite in upholding her spiritual independence." The assembly had nothing to complain of as regarded the affections of the people. They had flowed towards the church with marked and increasing cordiality, ever since the veto-law was first adopted. The passing of that law in 1834 was the first palpable proof the people had, for several generations, received of the assembly's desire to do justice to their rightful claims, — and they appreciated the constancy with which it had been subsequently maintained. But why the repeal of the veto-law, and the consequent return of such settlements as that of Marnoch, should call forth a burst of popular gratitude, it was not very easy to understand. It was, perhaps, a lurking consciousness of the difficulty of making this intelligible that deterred Dr. Hill from even attempting it. He was equally, and perhaps not less discreetly silent, as to the mode in which he and his friends were, upon the condition proposed, to support so strongly the independence of the church. To those who have no theory on the subject to maintain, it will probably appear, that for ^,^S n,.,de the church to have repealed the veto -law would, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, have been tanta- mount to a renunciation of the doctrine of spiritual independence altogether. At that moment the veto- law had come to be the very symbol of her indepen- dence. So long as it stood among her statutes, it proclaimed to her people, and to the community at large, that while civil enactments must needs govern it impossible for the church to consent to peal the 360 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. sucli clvIl aiid temporal things as tlie benefices of the church, — her own laws, founded upon the word of God, were the only authorities competent to regulate such spiritual matters as ordination and admission to a cure of souls. By maintaining the veto-law, she simply, but most significantly declared, that even to gain the temporalities of the state, she could not, and would not, surrender the spiritualities of the church. The hill would Duke of Aro-yirs bill would have placed the civil law have liar- . . . dvu hw *^^ respecting the one in harmony with the ecclesiastical thfbeieSce law respectino* the other: and hence her anxiety for ^"h "'6 1 ? ^ 111 n 1 • ecclesiastical thc succcss ot a mcasurc that would have restored this law regard- of'soJal'"^^ liaj)py and most desirable agreement. But to repeal the existing ecclesiastical law when, as yet, nothing had been done on the side of the state at all, — could mean nothing else than this, that she had made up her mind to keep the secular emoluments of her establish- ment at the expense of casting her own spiritual pre- rogatives away. Dr. Hill moved, as an amendment, *'that the bill lately introduced into the house of peers, by the Duke of Argyll, does not appear either likely Br. Hill's to pass into a law, or calculated, if it were, to relieve ameudment. ^ the church from the difficulties under which she labours, and that, in order to the attainment of this desirable end, the steps necessary for rescinding the veto-act be taken." The next speaker was the Rev. Robert Lee, of Camp- sie, now one of the ministers of the established church fKLee' in Edinburgh, and the holder of that professorship of biblical criticism in the metropolitan university already noticed, as having been originally intended for Dr. Candlish. Mr. Lee took a juster and more generous THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL. 3g-j^ view of the case. Though belonging to the same ciiap.xiii. party as Dr. Hill, ''he did not feel at liberty to sup- port his motion. The whole of the reverend doctor in, „piy to (Hill's) argument was just in substance, that the Duke ^''■"'"" of Argyll's bill should not be accepted by the church because, in the reverend doctor's opinion, the church ought to repeal the veto, and because there was no likelihood of the bill passing. He (Mr. Lee), for his part, though to repeal the veto might be a means of saving the church, would not advise his brethren to do that which would render them contemptible in their own eyes and in the eyes of others. The chance of success to the bill was indeed small, — but he could not, nevertheless, reconcile it to his conscience to oppose it. They were all agreed that nothing could relieve them from their difficulties except a legislative enactment, and he could not conceive any enactment adapted to that purpose, if not some such one as this." JNTor was it merely for the sake of jDcace and concilia- tion Mr. Lee gave his support to the bill. He took higher and bolder ground, and subsequent events have amply justified the soundness of his views. " It was easy," he said, ''to confer popular privileges, but it Mr. Lee was very difficult to take them away. Half the revo- fhedLTer , . . , 11111 11 Of«ltlKllilW- lutions m the world had been caused by attempts to 1"^^ ^P-X"'; wrest back popular privileges once conferred. The felled.""' people of Scotland never would give n^ the power of the veto; and if they did not have it within, they would have it without the church. This bill was the only modification of patronage the house would get. If another modification was needed, it would be a great one. He would not have them be like the 362 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. Tarquiii, who paid a threefold price for a third of the ^withhfs'own sybil's books. Their friends on the other (the evan- rSgTo gelical) side of the house, had shown their readiness meet tlie ° . ^ , , , roi.cessious to makc what concessions they could: were tney on of the evaii- •' •' gelicalparty. ^|^Jg ^'^^^ J^^ ^|^g-j, ^^^.^^^ ^^ y^g^^J ^^p nothlug?" The amendment of Dr. Hill was seconded by Mr. David Milne, advocate, whose speech was the only one that made no pretensions to keeping tune with the key-note struck at the commencement of the debate. It was not, however, sufficiently important to create anything more than a temporary jar. The tones were discordant, but they were lost in the gene- ral harmony. Unhappily, however, the harmony itself was little more than a pleasant sound. With the Mr Lee the houourable exception of Mr. Lee, no member of the vrduaiwho moderate party gave anything better than smooth tiie^appeai words as tlicir response to Mr. Candlish's appeal. caudiish. ^y Robertson, of Ellon, from whom some had expected a more substantial expression of kindly feeling, while he " very much admired," like Dr. Hill, the spirit in which Mr. Candlish had spoken, " could not agree to the proposal which that gentle- man had made to his (Mr. R.'s) side of the house, — and he thought he could give satisfactory reasons for Speech of the refusinof to airree." Mr. Robertson said — ''Were Rev. Mr. o O Eiior'""°^<'oi^sistency the only obstacle to our meeting Mr. Candlish's proposal, he could throw consistency to the winds; but there is also conscience, and he was not without a groundwork of principle for what he stated in this house. The scriptures of truth asserted that christian men, in dealing with one another, when they have a charge to make, should have reasons for reasons 'lied. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL. 3(53 the charge : and surely when christian people have a chap. xiii. charge against the person appointed to be their pastor, *8j;„^°a"*: they should have reasons to give for it openly and "Ssta fairly, that all the world mic^ht iudoje of it." In this ^'i^i'""* statement, Mr. Robertson assumes that for a cono-re- gation to decline to intrust the care of their souls to any individual whom a j^atron may think fit to nomi- nnte, is the same thing as to bring a personal charge against him. Before, however, this can be taken for granted, it will be necessary first to get rid of the principle of non-intrusion. The very essence of that principle is this — that the pastoral tie cannot be lawfully formed without the free consent of both the parties concerned. A minister is not to be held as brino-ino- a charo-e aoainst a cono-regation because he Tlic fallacy to be held as bringing a charge against a minister because they decline his services. The making of a charge implies a responsibility which neither party is bound in such a case to undertake. It implies, more- over, the right of some third party to step in between them, to overrule the charge, and to establish the alliance against the dissentients' will. Mr. Robert- son's assumption, therefore, simply begs the whole question upon the point that was in dispute between himself and his opponents. It falls in, indeed, easily and naturally with the theory and practice of modera- tism in regard to the settlement of ministers. If the people had anything to allege against a presentee, which could be put into the form of a libel, and which would infer, if proved, the censures of the church, their opposition might in that case be listened to, but 3(54 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. Rot otlierwisG. TliIs was the only standing wlucli, in the days of dominant moderatism, had been conceded to the congregations of the chnrch. Mr. Robertson's argnment was evidently, though perhaps insensibly, derived from a reference to that state of things. It was a mere mockery, as applied to non-intrusion and the veto-law. Dr. Hill At this stage of the debate. Dr. Hill, at the sug- Mendment. gcstiou of liis owu fricuds, askcd leave to withdraw that clause of his amendment which stated, " That the bill lately introduced into the house of peers, by the Duke of Argyll, does not appear likely to pass into a law." It was in reference to this request, that the Rev. Mr. Cunningham, who spoke immediately after it was made and agreed to, said '' he was glad Mr. Cunning, that Dr. Hill had withdrawn the clause in his motion andhi?''*'' which made it a ground for not acceptinoj the bill, remarks on '-' i o the amend-"^ t^'"^* it was uiiUkely to pass. He would have thought it most unbecoming in that house to have formed its conclusions on such a ground, and he could never suppose that they would, in a motion made in such grave circumstances, found their deliberations on a consideration so insignificant and irrelevant." Refer- ring to the argume7itmn ad hominem which had been made use of in the discussion, ** Dr. Hill," said the speaker, *' had taunted them with an admission of the jDrinciple of patronage, by agreeing to a modifica- tion of it. The church of Scotland, while it had Replies to iir. ^I'^^ys beeu oue of her principles that the order which ""Ti God's word craves could not stand with patronage. ment now withdrawn by Dr. Hill. 7>ientn hominem. had protested for limiting and modifying the evil whenever they could not get it abolished. In 1642, the THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL. 365 cliurcli acquiesced in an arrangement for getting the chai-. xiii. crown parishes filled up by means of leets, — first of six, and afterwards of four names. In that way the church of that day took a part in regulating and modifying patronage. Other instances he might, had it been necessary, refer to. Dr. Hill had objected also that they were admitting the right of parlia- ment to regulate the admission of ministers. That objection was a mere play upon words. In one sense, they did admit the right of the legislature to inter- fere in the admission of ministers ; and there was a sense also in which they denied it. The state made confu.kmof •' _ ^ _ Dr. Hill's arrangements as to the extent to which the civil con- ™o'f,e'^tson's sequences should follow the decisions of the church. subfecT "^''^ That was the state's part. Mr. Robertson, last cussion. night, (in the debate on patronage) seemed to suppose that they claimed a right to decide on the question of civil property, — as if the spiritual independence of the church were identical with the civil property which appertained to the church. What they claimed as necessary to their independence was — that they should take up the claim of the presentee, and judge of his admission or rejection, according to the word of God and the standards of the church. We claim, indeed, that civil consequences should be made to follow our judgments; because, as he (Mr. 0.) said yesterday, if they did not so follow, the state would frustrate its own design in the establishment of the church. But though no civil effects followed the sentences of the church, that was no reason why they should change their sentences. The only effect was, that the bene- fice was taken away, and the design of the state pro 3(5g THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. tanto frustrated. But tlieir decisions must be regu- lated by a liiglier standard than any consideration grounded on, or connected with, these civil effects. If the state did not concur in the decision of the church, the benefice and the cure would be dissociated, — and that duty which the state, and not the church, was bound to, was not accomplished." His reply to TuHiing his atteutiou to that part of Dr. Hill's assertion amendment in which it was affirmed that the Duke of that the bill Xlx'thc Argyll's bill was '' not calculated to relieve the church her'lhfficuT from the difficulties under which she labours," Mr. Cunningham said — " He need not go over the ground to show that the bill would be productive of the most important results. It would put an end to the oppres- sions of the civil court, and leave the ministers to go about the exercise of their ministry in peace. Dr. Hill asked them if it would settle the cases of Auch- terarder and Marnoch ? No, it would not settle these cases ; but would the repeal of the veto settle them ? According to Dr. Hill and his friends, there was no way of settling these cases but by sanctioning the revolting atrocity at Marnoch, and forcing in Mr. whatitwouid Younor at Auchterarder. No; the bill of the Duke of settle and O ' wouidnot Argyll could not settle these cases, but it would pre- vent all such cases in time to come; and these cases, however painful and annoying they might be in the meantime, they would yet get over." At the close of the debate, the amendment of Dr. Motion of ur. Hill was rejcctcd, and the motion of Mr. Candlish rarriedbya approvcd aud adoptcd by a majority of 125 ; the i^'^- numbers being, for the amendment 105, and for the motion 230. A majority of more than two to one in THE DIKE OF ARGYLL'S BILL. 3g'jr the general assembly ought to have carried weight in cuAP.xin, parliament. It was decisive as to the prevailing senti- ment of the church; and had an enlightened patriotism guided the councils of the state, the Duke of Argyll's bill would have been converted into statute law within a month after the assembly rose. But we must not anticipate the current of events. The assembly had still another great question to Anothergreat deal with, and one more excitinor by far than either of mains t^iie a J disposed of those to which reference has yet been made. Matters SV'^" of legislation, though in themselves the most important of all, — seeing that they affect the very constitution of the body which they concern, and may exert, for gene- rations, a powerful influence on its character and whole proceedings, — yet do they, for the most part, move men's feelings greatly less than matters of mere administration. There is such a difference between the abstract and the concrete, in respect of present impression, that society will often look on with com- parative indifference at the framing of a law, the application of which may be destined to set the king- dom on fire. So it was in these debates of the sreneral assembly of the church of Scotland. Patronage and the Duke of Argyll's bill touched both of them, the legislative vitals of the church's constitution as a national estab- p'oughmore inij)ortant, lishment ; and without some speedy adjustment of the i"teresuhan matters to which they related, the disruption was aHmSa- incvitable. And yet the interest which they awakened, excepting, perhaps, in the case of a few of the calmer and more reflecting minds, was greatly inferior to that which gathered around the case of the Strathbogie ministers. Their case, it is true, though in its own 368 THE TEN YEAES' CONFLICT. chap^iii. proper nature a mere case of discipline, was one of ^bogfeTa^^: unusual magnitude. It was the breach by which the smipiyoT storminof party of the erastian forces was attempting to discipline, . . . i o viteiTo."^ force its way into the citadel of the church's freedom, — °""*" and no wonder, therefore, that there should have been concentrated upon it so large an amount of the anxieties and energies of the general assembly. When the day appointed for taking up this momen- tous case arrived, Thursday, the 29th of May, all the tKIrr'* suspended ministers appeared at the bar, with the exception of Mr. Cruikshanks of Glass, the state of whose health did not permit him to leave home. Mr. Patrick Robertson and Mr. Hamilton Pyper were along with them as their counsel. In pleading their case, Mr. Robertson seemed to rely more on threats than arofuments, — on the influence of terror rather than speechofMr. ou tlic forcc of trutli. " Have a care," said he, ''that Patrick . • 'j.! • Kobertson, thc scntcnce you pronounce is withm your power. With respect to the relevancy of the indictment, there is nothing in that point which does not decide the merits of the indictment. If you find the libel relevant, you must proceed to pronounce sentence. We have no defence apart from this. We have committed no crime, — we offer no j^roof — we have no proof to offer, — the facts are admitted. Our minute of admission is before you. Have a care then how you now proceed. Will you depose us ? Have you the power to pro- nounce sentence of deposition? Will the civil law regard your sentence of deposition, any more than it did your sentence of suspension ? Will these men cease to be ministers of our Scottish church ? I talk not of their right to their glebes, and their manses. counsel for the Strath- \>og\Q minis ters. DEPOSITION OF STRATH BOGIE MINISTERS. 369 and their stipends, and their churches, and their cuAr.xni. schools? I ask, dare you loose their connection with the people, — with the flocks over whom they have long presided? Have you power to loose that connection? Have you power to drive these seven ministers from the church of Scotland?" This rapid discharge of startling interrogatories, however effective as a piece ^soJ^^decia". of forensic declamation, was not likely to frighten from "kdy'to""' their propriety men who inherited the spirit, and impression , , ■'■on earnest were treading in the footsteps of the old Scottish '"""■ reformers. When the pleadings at the bar had been concluded, and the house was now ready to proceed to judgment, an aged and venerable minister, the Rev. Mr. Munro of Halkirk, was called on to eno-asre in prayer, for divine guidance, in this painful and momentous case. At the close of these devotions. Dr. Chalmers rose. " The question," he said, after bringing out in the introductory part of his address, and that with equal precision and power, the radical distinction between matters of principle and matters of simple expediency, " the question between the ^Sners/' 1 1 1 1 o 11 • • • • 11 sliewswhat church and the btrathbosfie mniisters, is not whether istuereai O ' nature of ilie the veto be a good or a bad law, — but the question is, ''''^^" whether disobedience to their ecclesiastical superiors be a good or a bad action. They hold it to be good, because, while what they did was in disobedience to an ecclesiastical, it was done in obedience to a civil mandate. This lands us in another question, — Whether, when in a thing strictly ecclesiastical, as the ordination of a minister, or the dispensation of a sacra- ment, the civil court gives forth one order, and the ecclesiastical another, — whether to disobey the latter II. ;70 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. tliat we iiiaj obey the former, be a right or a wrong principle. We have conjured up this question, not with the view of prosecuting it to a conclusion — that has already been done a thousand times over — but of bidding you remark how utterly diverse a definition it is to the question, — whether the veto be a good or a bad law, — whether the law be good or bad, — whether an ancient or a recent law, — whether it be the oldest in the statute book, or have been enacted only a few years, and to be repealed, perhaps, in a few days, — it positively matters not to the inherent character of the offence on which we now sit in judgment; and unless we confound the essence of a thing with the occasion of a thing, we shall read, in the disobedience of the -nie^conduct gtrathbogic ministers, a blow struck at the entire mSstere'^ iurisdictioii of the church, — a distinct matter truly from strikes a. e!°fe -uris ^^^J ^^ ^^®^' particular ordinances, and only to be dis- tjfe'ctoch. posed of on distinct and peculiar considerations of its own." But is there no umpire who can decide between the courts by which these conflicting orders are issued ? On that important point the assumption of the Strath- bogie ministers, and of the moderate party generally, tueoJyofthe was tliis j that no umpire was needed, — that wherever right and ■■■ ■ttK°^ the two courts, the civil and the ecclesiastical, differed die in their judgments, the ecclesiastical must give way. settling difference between ecciesiasti. Was tlic assuuiption of their opi)onents the counter- cal courts. ••■ ■'■■'■ part of that theory ? Did the evangelical party hold that in the event of the disagreement supposed, the civil court must, as matter of course, bow to the judg- ment of the ecclesiastical ? " We do not," said Dr. Chalmers, speaking to that precise question, '* over- DEPOSITION OF STRATIIBOGIE MINISTERS. ^^ji Parliament is tlieoiilycon- stitutiuiial umpire be- look the consideration, that while there lies a power chap^iii. with each court, within its own proper sphere, to decide ™p„\miea between man and man, — there must be a power some- mers!' where, to decide, or rather to regulate and ordain, between court and court, when a conflict shall have broken out between them : a power then, which does not lie with either court singly, — not even with the house of lords when sitting in its judicial capacity as the supreme civil court : and not certainly with the general assembly when acting in its judicial capacity as the supreme ecclesiastical court. That power resides in the legislature, to whom all alonof we have been addressing ourselves, since the commencement of the present question. We are not willing either to be overborne in our principles, or extinguished in our being, as a national establishment, by the court of Tweenuie" . _ . conflicting session. We have gone more constitutionally to work, ^ence'th"*^ We have been knocking at the door of parliament, aipeauo and seeking for adjustment there. We are still hope- ^^ """^^ fill that they will decide this question otherwise than by an experiment, whether on our firmness, or on our fears : or by leaving us to the war of interdicts, and processes, and legal exactions, — a measure as un- worthy of a wise and patriotic government, as if, on a misunderstanding between the civil and criminal courts of the country, they should be left to fight it out, as they may, till the one, in the exercise of their power, had fined and imprisoned ad libitum, all the lords of justiciary; or the other, in the exercise of theirs, had exiled or executed all the lords of session. Better than this surely, that the legislature should let us know at their own mouth, what their understandino"='>i ''H- The motion of Dr. Chalmers was in the following words: " The general assembly approve and confirm the sentence of the commission of date 18th Novem- ber, 1840, sustaining the relevancy of the libel, and they now find the libel proven, with the exception of the charge therein last mentioned, founded upon the serviniT upon the commission a notarial protest. The mouon ^ ^ . ^ \ ' ofDr. Clial- and they find Mr. John Cruickshank, minister of ^'"^ Glass, Mr. William Cowie, minister of Cairnie, Mr. William Allardyce, minister of Rhynie, Mr. William Masson, minister of Botriphnie, Mr. James Walker, minister of Huntly, Mr. James Thomson, minister of Keith, and Mr. James Alexander Oruikshank, minis- ter of Mortlach, guilty of the offences therein charged against them respectively, under exception of the before mentioned charge, founded upon the serving the commission with the notarial protest aforesaid, — and the general assembly, in respect of these offences, charged each by itself, and involving deposition inde- pendent of the others, do hereby depose Mr. Cruick- shank, (fee, from the office of the holy ministry." The Rev. Mr. Bisset, of Bourtie, an ardent sup- porter of the seven ministers, who rose immediately after Dr. Chalmers sat down, had not the good fortune to command the attention of the house, — which ^^^ ^5^,,^,^ speedily became so thin, that when he came to a close "''J'""'""'- Dr. Cook intimated his unwillingness to proceed with so scanty an audience, and moved that they should adjourn till the evening. It had meanwhile been 378 THE TEN YEA.RS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. agreed — in accordance with suggestions which came '^If'Cchai- ^I'om both sides of the house — that the latter part of st'rSeTto the motion of Dr. Chahiiers should be struck out, and finding the ■• • •• n • 1 iiiiii lii.ei relevant that HI thc first uistancc the assembly should thus and proven. *' confine itself to the question of finding the libel rele- vant and proven, reserving the sentence for a separate and subsequent stage of the proceedings. When the house met in the evening, Dr. Cook re-opened the discussion. Having declared it to be his conviction, that the sentence pointed at by Dr. Chalmers " would, although carried in this house by the vote, not of a majority merely, but of every person in it, be null and void," he proceeded as follows : — "I must crave the indulgence of the assembly whilst ^speech!"' I state, as clearly and as shortly as I can, the reasons which have led me to form this opinion, and upon which reasons it is that I rest the motion with which I mean to conclude, and to which I trust there will be a nume- rous and a firm adherence, whatever deliverance may here be given. It cannot admit of dispute, that there is a civil authority which, in what relates to the con- dition of the great body of the people, who enter into the social union, and submit to the administration of government, must be supreme, — that there cannot be two ultimate conflicting jurisdictions or legislatures ; His view of and this is the dictate equally of reason and of revela- premacy' tlou. If the case wcrc otherwise, the foundation of society would soon be overturned. What is the lan- guage of scripture as to this point ? ' Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,' ' The powers that be are ordained of God.' * Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.' * Who- DEPOSITION OF STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 31^9 soever resistetli the power, resistetli tlie ordinance of ci.ap. xni. God.' * Put the people/ says St. Paul to Titus, 'in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey magistrates.' No precepts could be more explicit than these, — resting obedience to the civil ^quenHuty power upon the foundation of sacred duty and of con- church to . . *^ he subject. science. The confession of faith, the authoritative standard of the church of Scotland, inculcates the same views, founding them upon the passages in scrip- ture to which I have referred. It is, we see by the confession, the duty of the people to obey the lawful command of magistrates, and to be subject to their authority for conscience sake. It is added, infidelity or difference of reliction doth not make void the masis- trate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him, from which ecclesi- astical persons are not exempted. It is from all this quite manifest, that no man, or body of men, can, without violation of duty, resist the just command of magistrates — that is, of the civil 230wer ; and hence it follows, that when such obedience is yielded, no class Applies ws of persons is warranted to punish those who do yield trinftothe" ■*■ -I ./ particular it upon the ground that they have done so: and all the '^'^'^• means employed to inflict punishment, whatever they may be in themselves, or abstractedly considered, are, when so employed or perverted, to be condemned." This was indeed a summary way of settling the whole question in dispute. Dr. Cook was making evident progress in his erastian views. What his earlier statements in this controversy had put cau- tiously and indirectly, and so as that it could be extracted out of them in the way of inference alone. 380 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiip.xiii. he got SO far some years later as to lay down in the Ti^e erastmn- ghape of an affirmative proposition. That proposi- nowiuif tion, however, as announced on all former occasions, professed to have certain limits. The usual mode of expressing it was this — that it was the duty of the ecclesiastical courts to give obedience to the decrees of the civil courts in all matters which these civil courts ''declared to affect civil rights." Even in that shape, the doctrine was sweeping enough, — seeing that there are so few things a church can be called to do on earth that may not, by a little freedom of con- struction, be made to fall within the range of so elastic and comprehensive a category. The limit which it It had former- mifflit secm at first sio'ht to impose on this right of lyatleastan * i i i • • l Ti apparent ^-^q (.jyji courts to coutrol tlic ccclcsiastical, was like a portable fence, which might be put down only a step or two within the first field of the conterminous proprie- tor to-day, and the next at the farthest verge of his estate. But Dr. Cook had now made up his mind to absolve the courts of law from the inconvenience of working with this movable boundary altogether. He had now resolved the whole matter into that scripture text, ''Let every soul be subject to the higher powers." This, of course, left no need and no room for any a'umitatioif dcclaratiou on ihe part of these higher powers, or of no™:'''" their organs, the courts of law, as to what their decrees affected. It was not the subject, but the source of the decree, which gave it validity and force. If it emanated from that " civil authority which, in what relates to the condition of the great body of the j^eople, who enter into the social union, and submit to the ad- ministration of government, must be supreme," — there DEPOSITION OF STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 381 was an end of the whole question. To resist it ''was cuap.xhi. to resist the ordinance of God." Dr. Cook omitted ^^;;„|j^;;J^ to to explain how, upon this principle, Shadrach, Me- cuhum'm-' shach, and Abednego could be justified in disobeying Jj°^'^f;j,'^'^2c the command of Nebuchadnezzar to fall down and tTed.'"^'"' worship the golden image, — or Daniel, in continuing to pray to the God of Israel in direct opposition to the decree of Darius, — or Peter and John, in persisting to preach the gospel of Christ in spite of the express prohibition of the Jewish sanhedrim. But, more extravagant and extraordinary still, not contented with propounding this doctrine as his own creed, he insisted, with great emphasis and formality, that it was the avowed creed of the church of Scot- land ; that Andrew Melville, in the second book of discipline, and Henderson, Gillespie, and Rutherford, in the Westminster confession, had themselves deli berately laid it down ! The strangeness of the state ment was, if possible, outdone by the strangeness of ^" the evidence adduced to prove it. The passages on which Dr. Cook founded were these: the fo'st from the second book of discipHne,->' that ''diligence should be taken chiefly by the moderator, that only ecclesiastical things be handled in the assemblies, and that there be no meddling with anything pertaining to the civil jurisdiction;" and the secoyid from the confession of faith,! that " synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical ; and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs, which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition, * Chap, vii., section 4tli. t Chap, xxxi., sectiou 5th. The extrava- gance of his assertion, tliat this tianism was the doctriiie of the Clmrch of Scotland. 382 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. in casGS extraordinary, — or by way of advice for satis- faction of conscience, if they be thereunto required of the civil maa^istrate"! It were a mere waste of words to shew that these passages simply prohibit the church ^quofed ftom courts froui trespassing on the province of the state, — dards. and aud that by the very act of doing so they as distinctly import. debar the state from intruding into the province of the church. They assume that the church has a domain of its own, — an assumption which Dr. Cook's theory destroys. But the able leader of the moderate party neither was nor could be ignorant that the passages now quoted are not the only ones to be found in the standards of the church, bearing upon the question in dispute. He knew, though he failed to notice the fact, that in the very chapter of the second book of discipline, from which the words above quoted are taken, it is expressly declared, that it belongs to the general assembly '' to cause the ordinances, made by the assemblies, provincial, national, and general, to be kept and put in execution;" in other words, that Correlative it is a part of its duty to enforce obedience on the whichbr'ing part of inferior church judicatories to the church's out a direct- '- •' Ifocumr" laws, and to the decrees of its supreme court, exactly u°"cook.° as it was now doing in the case of the presbytery of Strathbogie ; and further, that speaking of ministers, the same chapter goes on to say, that the ''deposition also pertains " to the general assembly of them ''that be ffiven to schism or rebellion ao-ainst the kirk:" the very prerogative which the general assembly of 1841 was now called to exercise. With respect again to the confession of faith, the same chapter to which Dr. Cook referred, claims for synods and councils those DEPOSITION OF STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 333 very powers which it Wtis the object of his argument to ciiap.xiii. prove that the confession disallowed. " It belongeth,'* says the confession/"' " to synods and councils, minis- terially to determine controversies of fiiith and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the amuiuTc'-^ better orderingf of the public worshii) of God and chmch ~ ■•- ■•■ courts as government of his church ; to receive complairds in coSiou cases of mal- administration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His word." If Dr. Cook could have made out his fundamental statement regarding the super-eminent jurisdiction of the civil power, the long and laborious disquisition into which he subsequently entered regarding the law Great part of of patronage, and the true meaning of non -intrusion, men'whoiiy and the illegality of the veto-law, would have been altogether unnecessary. But failing, as he did, to show either from the standards of the church, or from statute law, any foundation whatever for his erastian views, — all that he said afterwards was wholly beside the question. Grant that the law of patronage, and the true meaning of non-intrusion had borne that con- struction which Dr. Cook put upon them, — the ques- tion still remained — What have the courts of law to do with the spiritual censures -of the church? Dr. Cook summed up his speech in these words: — * Chap, xxxi., section 3J. 384 'THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiAP.xiiL " The amount of all which I have endeavoured to establish is, that according to the law, both of the church and the state, the veto-act invaded civil riohts: that on this account it could not have the proper and efficient authority which flows from ecclesiastical traces idi to courts, tlicsc courts being prohibited by the church the Veto- _ ' ^ ^ _& i ^ J '"'''• itself from interfering with matters civil; and that, consequently, the determination of the seven Strath- bogie ministers not to be guided by that act, but by the injunctions of the supreme civil tribunals of th(5 country, was in perfect conformity with their duty, and ought not to have subjected them to censure, far less should have occasioned their being served with a libel, for the purpose of their being deposed should the libel be proved, or the charges which it contains be admitted." Founding upon these views. Dr. Cook moved the 11)9 motion, following amendment: — " The general assembly having most maturely considered the libel, ordered by its com- mission in August to be served upon Messrs. John Cruickshank, tfcc, tfec, and the different subsequent proceedings connected therewith, find that the whole originated from the said ministers having yielded obedience to the supreme civil tribunals of the king- dom in a matter, declared by these tribunals, to affect civil rights, with which the church requires that its judicatories shall not intermeddle, — such declaration, on the part of the civil tribunals, being, in this case, in perfect conformity with the law and practice of the church ; and hence, considering it incompetent for the ecclesiastical courts to pass any sentence of censure in regard to the proceedings to which the said declara- DEPOSITION OF STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 385 tion relates, — set aside these proceedings, dismiss the chap^iit. libel, and declare that the ministers named in it, and ''acquu the agamst whom it was dn-ected, are in tlie same situa- teis. tion, in all respects, as to their ministerial state and privileges, as if such libel had never been served, and such proceedings had nether taken place." The amendment was seconded by Lord Seafield, who brought to the help of it the weight of his title and large posessions. Having, without a single remark, discharged this duty, his lordship was suc- ceeded by the Rev. Mr. Cunningham. "A o-reat speech iu '' o o support of deal," — he began by observing, '* of what has been said of i)™'chal by the Rev. Doctor (Cook), must have been felt, by wxunmi^gl many of the members of the house, to have had little or no connection with the important subject now under discussion. The connection, apparently, even in the Rev. Doctor's own mind, was of a very distant and remote kind, betwixt the questions before them and the public documents and proceedings of the church to which he had referred. He had no intention of followinor the Rev. Doctor into the minute considera- tion of these points: first, on account of their remote connection with the subject before them; and in the second place, because he had already had opportunities of fully discussing these subjects through the press : and because he took the liberty of saying that what he had said through the press, yet waited for an answer." With the directness characteristic of the speaker, he went accordingly and at once into the heart of the subject. " The question before them was, whether or ^J^^'^^/^fJlf not the facts alleged to be done by these unfortunate men, in the libel which had been served upon thein, 386 THE TEN YEXRS' CONFLICT. cnAP.xra. and which was now under consideration, — facts about the truth of which there could be no dispute, for their truth and correctness were notorious, and had been judicially admitted by the persons libelled, — whether these facts, so admitted by themselves, constitute an ecclesiastical offence, a crime warranting the infliction of the hinfhest ecclesiastical censure. This was the position he was called upon to occupy, — he held that these men had committed a crime, that they had been guilty of a heinous ecclesiastical offence, — so heinous as rightly to expose them to the highest censure His three- ^^ ^^^^ cliurcli. Hc would first veuturc to assert, IgainsuSl on the facts judicially admitted by these men, that ministers, thcrc was abuudaut ground for maintaining that they had broken the laws of the church : secondly, that they had violated their ordination vows : and thirdly, that they had been guilty of a sin against the Lord Jesus Christ.'* The mention of the word sin, in con- nection with the conduct of the recusant ministers, called forth from among their supporters a vehement outcry, — an outcry, however, which served only to betray those inadequate views which many men hold in regard to the discipline and authority of the church of Christ. Instead of withdrawinir, Mr. Cunninn-- ham calmly but firmly repeated his solemn assevera- MUedrsm-. tion: — *' He never would," he said, — " as lonjr as and Mr. C.'s p i • • i i • i • reply to It. he was a member oi a christian church, give his con- sent to the deposition of any man from the holy ministry, unless he could conclusively prove that the man had been guilty of a sin against the Lord Jesus Christ : and unless he was pre2:>ared to aver and con- clusively to establish that, he could not consent to vote The outcry raised at their con- DEPOSITION OF STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. ^^^ for deposition : but if tliey were prepared both to aver cnAP.xni. and conclusively to prove it, then lie believed that the sentence of deposition they were called this evening to pronounce, was a sentence that would be ratified in heaven." It had been alleged by their counsel at the bar, that the accused ministers ought to be pitied rather than blamed, — seeing that what they had done was not done ultroneously on their part, but was expressly required of them by the command of the courts of law, Mr. Cunninoham " could not conceive it possible for * .... I^f "•• C- shows any man who had read the libel seriously to maintain *|;"g„'n,i„i,. that position. They were not libelled for any acts underno done in compliance with the orders of the civil courts, s^ion. but for purely voluntary acts on their own part, — the result of their own judgment that these acts were an important part of their duty. The libel charged, that after having been suspended from their ministerial office by their ecclesiastical suj>eriors,they nevertheless continued to exercise the functions of the holy ministry and administer the ordinances of religion. That was not done by the order of the civil courts. They were never ordered to preach the gosjDel, to administer baptism, to dispense the sacrament of the Lord's supper. After they were suspended they were free to act as they pleased : they were free and voluntary agents : they were at liberty to consider the course they should adopt, and he presumed they did consider '''elfuril'ever it: but whether they did or not they came to the themTo^'do conclusion, that in spite of this suspension they would J;f^j;.'i''^V^ continue to administer divine ordinances. The other ''""^■ leading charge in the libel was, that they did go to the 2 B 2 388 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. civil coui'ts and call upon tliem to exercise tlieir civil authority for the reversal of the sentence of the church courts, exposing them to ecclesiastical censure. That too was purely a voluntary and deliberate act of their own. The civil courts did not call upon them to make such an application. "' "' ^ There was no order here from the civil courts, nor anything like an Tiie state- ordcr I aud therefore he took the liberty of saying, the bar in that the whole of the statement from the bar of the tneiruefence ecTon'Tu'^' house was founded on an assumption, — that the acts Sc^ ""*' charged against these men were performed in obedience to the orders of the civil courts, — which was an entire mistake of the whole bearings of the case, and could not be entertained by any man who had fairly read the libel upon which they were now called to judge." The speaker thereafter proceeded to state the grounds uppn which the acts libelled were held to be offences meriting deposition. He quoted the act of assembly 1648, by which it is declared, that ''if any suspended minister, during suspension, shall exercise any part of the ministerial calling, he shall be de- hadb?oTen P*^^^^* ^^ ''^^^^ advcrtcd to the act 1582, specified in the libel itself, which prohibited, under pain of the highest censures, any member or office-bearer of the church from bringing in the civil arm to arrest the course of discipline against him. He cited from Lauder's " Ancient Bishops " canons of the early church to show, that for a bishop to force himself into a church by the help of the civil power, and in opj^osition to the sentence of his ecclesiastical supe- riors, was an offence to be visited with excommunica- tion. He referred to these primitive authorities to had broken tlie laws of the Churc DEPOSITION OF STRATIIBOGIE MINISTERS. 339 shew, that the hiws, upon that point, of the church of cuAr.xiii. Scotland, were in accordance with the great principles of ecclesiastical jurisprudence, which had been estab- lished in the church at the earliest periods. On these grounds he clearly and conclusively showed, that in acting as they had done, they had broken the laws of the church. But he had further affirmed, that by these acts they had broken their ordination vows. " At their ^^^^^^^ ^j^._^ ordination as ministers," said Mr. Cunningham, Sruiei, advancing to the second point, " they solemnly pro- vows. mised to be subject to the judicatories of this church, to maintain the unity of this church against error and schism, notwithstanding of whatsoever trouble or per- secution may arise, and that they would follow no divisive courses from the present established doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the church. Now there could not be a doubt, whatever these men felt of a sense of duty to the civil courts, that their conduct was not in accordance with the obligation they voluntarily and deliberately took at the time of their ordination. They were guilty of withdrawing the obedience which they vowed to render to the judicatories of the church and their ecclesiastical supe- riors, and had acted in a way very far from promoting the unity and peace of the church which they had solemnly pledged themselves to maintain." It was not possible to plead as against that ordination vow, any competing obligation, — for they were under none. They had received no counter commands to those of the church, from any quarter whatever. It might be said, indeed, that it was hard to suffer where they 390 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. They were tliought themselves In the right, and that they were entitled to protect, by an appeal to the civil law, what they conceived to be their just claims. The hardship, if it was one, resulted from restrictions under which they themselves had voluntarily come. They " ap- ^nofe^titlcd plied for admission into a certain society, which to use the '^ . . , , . . thechmxif imposed certam restrictions upon that admission. thurch"'" Such is the case even in many corporations, which, with perfect justice and equity, bind their members not to use any privileges they may receive by becom- ing members, as against the society into which they have been admitted. On this ground we hold, that these unfortunate men were called upon to renounce the society and its privileges as ministers of the church of Scotland, before they could go into the civil courts for such a purpose and act as they had done. They had no inherent and indefeasible right, peculiar to themselves, and apart from the obligations under which they came, in common with the other office-bearers of the church, by their ordination vows. If they used the privilege, and employed the right they received by coining under this obligation, they used them as against the church, which conferred the right and bestowed the privilege. Had they renounced the obligation, had they relinquished their status, and returned to the state of liberty, — they might have been entitled to adopt whatever measures they chose : but so long as they held the privilege, they could not riofhteously exercise it as against the church which conferred it, without a flagrant violation of the original compact by which they received it." There was another point under this second branch DEPOSITION OF STRATIIBOGIE MINISTERS. 39^ of his argument, whicli deserves to be noticed. All cuap.xih. ministers of the established church, before entering on their office, are required to take, and do take the oath ihepieniu of allecflance. This oath was one of the pleas set up, fence dt- * , . ■■■^ _ >- ' rivfd from not only to justify the conduct of the ministers, but aue,°auce.' to condemn their accusers. ^' What," said Mr. Cun- ningham, " is the oath of allegiance ? The oath of allegiance is only this, that we shall be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty Queen Victoria : and tlie sum and substance of what is involved in it is this, that it is a solemn acknowledgment of Queen Victoria, in opposition to all pretenders, as the right- ful sovereign of Great Britain, and pledge to give her all loyalty and obedience, to which, by the constitution of Great Britain, the rightful sovereign is entitled. This is the whole effect of the oath of allegiance; it brinfrg us under new and additional oblifjations to Exposition of O O that oatli, render unto CcGsar the things that are Caesar's : but ^."IppHc"!^"' it throws no light on the question, which things are ''''"^' Caesar's, and which things are not. As an ecclesias- tical court, they were 23erfectly independent of all interference in ecclesiastical matters, even under the oath of the sovereign, who has no more authority (in Scotland) to regulate these matters, than to levy taxes without the consent of parliament. There had been oaths in the history of the country, which might have afforded some plausible ground for the conduct of these men. The oaths of former times might have stood them in some stead, — the oath of 1662, for example. The oaths of for refusing which, many of our forefathers suffered so "'^^^^7'^^!"^'^ nmch : and the infamous test of 1681, acknowledging {oThe"pur- the sovereign's supremacy in all causes ecclesiastical, ^'°''" 392 I'HE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. as Well as civil. In these, some plausible ground might have been found : but at the revolution, the supremacy of the crown (in matters spiritual) was swept away : and from that time down to the age in which we live, no such claim as this had ever been put forth, nor any such power or prerogative been enjoyed with respect to Scotland, by sovereigns of Great Britain, or any officer holding his powers from the sovereign." On the last point embraced in this luminous and powerful aroument, — namely, that the seven ministers •Rh third A O / •" . the'°had"'* at the bar had, by the acts charged agamst them, asalnst siuucd agaiust Christ, — Mr. Cunningham spoke as follows: — " Let him remind the house of their volun- tary and deliberate administration of ordinances when under suspension, — of their voluntary and deliberate appellation to the civil courts to remove the ecclesi- astical censure imposed ujDon them, and to restore them to the exercise of their ministerial functions. Now, with respect to the first of these two leading charges, the administering ordinances when under a sentence of suspension, it is admitted that it is not necessarily and in all cases an act of direct sin against Christ, because the sentence of suspension might have been erroneously pronounced. It might have '^u'whitV^ been a sentence pronounced clave errante ; -'' and havees^caped tlicrefore it was possible they might have acted as from this ••■ . . . . charge. ^|jgy \-^^^ douc without having committed a sin agamst the Lord Jesus Christ, provided they had appealed to Christ on conscientious grounds ag^ainst the sentence * By an erroneous use of the power of the keys. DEPOSITION OF STKATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 393 of tlie cliurcli. Only on this understanding could chap.xtii. they have been justified in disregarding the sentence ^l^'^^^J^ of their ecclesiastical superiors. They might have se^Tenccof taken an appeal to Christ ao-ainst the office-bearers to'chrSr' J- i » ^ _ Himself —it of the church, and then, in foro conscie7itiw and in foro SV"''^ Christi, continued in the exercise of their ministerial cfarge'*'"' functions. They did not carry their appeal to the Head of the church but to Csesar, who could not interfere in the affairs of the church without usurping the prerogatives of its great living Head, who would not give His glory to another. Under the banner of an appeal to the civil power, to use an expression of our forefathers, they had continued in the exercise of their spiritual functions, and called in the civil power to suspend the ecclesiastical sentence, — on these grounds, their voluntary administration of ordinances when under suspension fell under the same head as their voluntary application to the civil court to suspend our sentence and to restore them to their functions. Now, this latter step was plainly a renunciation of the '^,f^„^w„^''' allegiance they owed to the Lord Jesus Christ as the only King and Head of His church ; it was plainly a denial of His sole Headship and supremacy, and of the truth contained in the confession of faith and ratified by the law of the land, that Jesus Christ is King and Head of His church. It plainly involved a denial of the position that to His office-bearers, and to them alone, is committed the power of the keys. Would any one venture to deny that the court of ses- sion had assumed the power of the keys, and had thereby broken both the law of God and the law of the land, and been guilty of great sin ? and of all this ed not to Christ but to Caesar. 394 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. sill tliGse men were the authors and originators. This "^'Iruck a'^'''^ was the spirit that characterized the whole of their veryexist-*^ conduct ; aiid it madc their offence neither more nor eiiceofthe ii'i -x r^^ • • • Church as a [ess than hioh treason asfainst Jesus Christ, since it distinct O o ' society. ^^.^^ ^ blow aiiiicd at the very existence of the church as a distinct society, exercising functions and enjoying jDrivileges derived from Him and to be regulated by His word." To reply to this memorable speech the opponents of the motion of Dr. Chalmers had reserved Mr. Robertson of Ellon. Too acute a reasoner not to perceive the relevancy of the charge Mr. Cunning- ham had brouorht against the Strathbogie ministers of having sinned against Christ, and too manly, as well as too skilful, to sympathize with the indiscreet zeal which had tempted so many of his friends to raise a senseless outcry when that charge was made, Mr. ^Robertson Hobcrtsoii was at pains to say, how '' exceedingly ?epiies"o vexed" he had been, *^that when the last part of the Mr. Cuii- . rN . • uiughiim. subject (of Mr. Cunningham's speech) was mentioned there should have been any expression of feeling on his (Mr. Robertson's) side of the house, because he considered that this last point was worthy of the rev. gentleman, and because Mr. Cunningham must have made up his mind to this point before he could have agreed to support that sentence which was contem- Rebukesiiis platcd by the majority of the house, Mr. Cunninjr- owufriends. f . i /» , -i • , i -, ham was therefore bound, m honour, to make the statement and to give to the house the arguments on which, in his own conscience, he felt bound to support it." On the subject of the first branch of Mr. Cun- ningham's argument, that the Strathbogie ministers DEPOSITION OF STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 395 had broken the laws of the church, Mr. Robertson CHAP.xiir. endeavoured to show that the laws referred to did iiot bear on the present case. Mr. Cunningham had ni, answer alluded to the act of assembly 1582, and which was fii^t cii^ge. specified in the libel. That act prohibited any minis- ter or office-bearer of the church from withdrawing from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and from making any appellation from the general assembly to the civil power with a view to stop the discipline of the church: it was an act passed immediately after the great struggle for her spiritual freedom, recorded in an earlier part of this work, which the church had to maintain with the king and the privy council in the case of Montgomery. Mr. Robertson was of opinion that this act was not applicable to a case like that of the Strathbogie ministers. *' The church," he said, ''had, previous to 1582, declared that the offices of bishop and archbishop should cease, and in doing so they did not innoA^ate contrary to an act of parliament, but only acted in opposition to an understanding between the church and the government. The great ^,^g ^^^^ ^^ charge against Montgomery was, that he had accepted "Ttfie'Ilct^ of the office of a bishop, which had been denounced by the assembly and declared to be inconsistent with the word of God, and had called in the aid of the civil power to invest him with that abrogated office. This was the ground of the act of 1582, and it could not certainly be made to apply to the present case." Mr. Robertson could hardly be ignorant of the fact, that in the resistance the church was now offering to the encroachments of the civil courts, she denied that she was acting in opposition to any law or to any 396 I'lIE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. Understanding between tlie cliurcli and the govern- ment. When the church passed the veto act in 1834, she was regulating a matter spiritual as cer- tainly as when in 1580 she was condemning the ^oflhe'^jfu' prelatic office. Mr. Robertson said, that the sanction which the convention of Leith had given to that office was tantamount to a certain '' understanding" between the church and the state that the prelatic office was to be allowed. Be this as it may, it is unquestionable there was no such understanding either then or in 1834, that the civil power should be held competent to set aside the spiritual sentences of the church, — or, that the church should be held bound to take orders in matters spiritual from the courts of law. If, there- fore, the act 1582 was applicable to a case like Mont- gomery's, it was still more clearly applicable to a case like that of the Strathbogie ministers. Mont- gomery was condemned for going to the civil power to get himself maintained in an office disallowed by the church, — and this, although, as Mr. Robertson said, the church had, by the convention of Leith, given the state ground for understanding that it would permit ^mtntTurucd ^^^^^ officc to coutinue. The Strathbogie ministers, sfra"hbog\c on the other hand, were now on their trial for going to the civil power to maintain them in offices which the church had forbidden them to exercise, and con- cerning which offices she had not only given no understanding to the state that they were to be bestowed, or suspended, or taken away at the state's pleasure, but concerning which the state itself had declared, by statute, that the church's right to dispose of these offices was absolutely and entirely within her DEPOSITION OF STRATPIBOGIE MINISTERS. 397 civil dec to ordain. own control, as being a privilege ''granted by God to chap.xiit. the spiritual office-bearers of His church." Mr. Robertson refused, in arguing the case, to con- fine himself to the matters embodied in the libel. He insisted on going back " to the original cause of the '^soi.Yoer' proceedinofs " asjainst the Strathboo^ie ministers. In orT-mai doing so he had, of course, to meet the question — ceST' Had the courts of law a right to compel ordination ? He was not prepared to go quite so far as to answer that question with a direct affirmative. On the con- trary, he made the important, and for his purpose, fatal admission, that, '* if the (civil) court ordered the church to ordain a man, contrary to the conscientious '^ci'mrch''*' conviction of the presbytery concerned, then the toSbeya ' church could not agree to yield." It was contrary to the '' conscientious conviction," not of an inferior church judicatory, but of the general assembly, that the order of the civil court to proceed with the trials and settlement of Mr. Edwards should be obeyed ; and it was in defiance of an express order, founded upon that conviction, and issued by the assembly, that the Strathbogie ministers acted as they had done. To get over the difficulty involved in his own admis- sion, Mr. Robertson drew a distinction between a decree to ordain the presentee, and a decree to take him on trials. *' All that the courts can do," he 2lr*«' said, " is to order that the presbytery shall, in a wsSs' christian manner, take the presentee on trials; and it is only after the presbytery is satisfied with his quali- fications, that the civil law can order them to proceed to his admission or induction." But if a presentee cannot be inducted without being ordained, what is Attempts to SlOIl, Mr. Robert- bar. 398 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. the difference between an order by the civil courts to induct, which Mr, Robertson seemed to think would be binding, and an order to ordain, which he admitted the church might refuse to obey? Mr. Robertson's argument upon this point was not worthy of a mind like his, — and served only to show to what straits he anVZ^-f was reduced in pleading this case. " An idea," he S"rthe said, " seemed to have gone abroad that, as there was a spiritual part in this act of induction, the church could neither receive nor act on an order from the civil courts. In the arguments at the bar of the house, there was one simple argument adduced, which not one of the reverend gentlemen opposite had attempted to grapple with. The counsel had referred them to the confession of faith, where it was said the civil magistrate — he cared not whether the civil mads- trate here were the crown, or the legislature, or the court of session — the civil magistrate had the power to call synods, and to be present at them: and if he had the power to call courts of the church, he had the power also to bring the members together, and to lay before them such matters as he thought to be for the good of the church. If, therefore, it were admitted that the civil magistrate had the power to call the has^power cliurcli courts to mcct, and to consider the business synods, ia^i(j before them, he would ask if any church court and there- ' •' Srethm could bc coustitutcd without prayer? Without being ^"''"^ constituted by prayer, there was no court, — the law says nothing about prayer, that was a spiritual act, and yet the civil magistrate had power to call synods. He could bring them together to act for the good of the cliurch, — and there they must, before they could con- The civil DEPOSITION OF STRATHBOGIE MLXISTERS. 399 sider what was required of tliem, take a spiritual step cuapxiti. — a step as spiritual as ordination!" That is to say, because the church allows it to be comj^etent to the civil ma'Tfistrate to call a synod of the church in order Answer to ° _ •' _ 111 is fainoua to lay before it some matter touching which he may ^'°"""=»'- desire to have advice, or to which he may wish to direct the attention of the church, — and because the synod cannot, according to its own rules, as a court of Christ, meet without asking divine direction, — therefore the courts of law are competent and entitled to issue orders upon the courts of the church, requiring them, not simply to deliberate on a certain matter proposed respectfully for their consideration, but to carry the sentences of the civil courts into execution, however undeniably spiritual may be the matters which these sentences involve. Mr. Robert- son's reasoning, though often more specious than solid, seldom furnished so perfect a specimen of the non-sequitur as this. Not only do the premises, even as these are stated by Mr. Robertson, involve no such conclusion as the one which he founded on them, but the premises themselves are full of assumptions at variance with facts. The power of the civil magis- trate, in the calling of synods, was never sanctioned by the church in the broad and unqualified form in which it is laid down in the chapter of the confession Ti.cciu.rch of faith to which Mr. Robertson referred. In the doctrine o^ act 01 assembly 164/ , approvmg the confession of '""1'*^'^^*'='* faith, the chapter in question is singled out for the sjodl very purpose of stating ''that the assembly under- standeth some parts of the second article " of that chapter " only of kirks not settled or constituted 400 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xiii. jj^ point of government." Furthermore, the civil magistrate and the civil court are by no means syno- nymous terms. Within certain limits, the church allows to the supreme power of the state a right to call synods; but never and nowhere has it conceded such a rio-ht to a mere court of law — a court which, instead of being identical with the state, is simply a servant of the state, appointed to perform a certain definite and limited part of the state's business. Keeping in view these remarks upon the premises of this famous argument, the absurdity of its conclusion becomes still more apparent. As the clever hit of a counsel at the bar, it was tolerable enough, — but it was hardly deserving of a place in the reasoning of such a man as Mr. Robertson, in the judicial discus- sions of the general assembly. To meet the charge that the seven ministers had broken their ordination vows, Mr. Robertson had nothing better to plead than the oath of allegiance. *' It was true," he said, " that these gentlemen had -,,,,, come under the ordination vows ; and he had no Mr. Robert- ' oatVoV^^ doubt that they took these vows honestly, and firmly a egiance. ^^g^g^j^^jj^g^^^ ^q adlicrc to tlicm lu the spirit in which they were taken. But he must also advert to the fact that these gentlemen had previously taken the oath of allegiance to the constitution of the country, and were bound to adhere to that constitution as explained by the civil courts of the country ; and, therefore, when the decrees of the civil courts were brought to them, they were bound to act upon them, not only as subject to those courts if they disobeyed them, but as true-hearted men, who were determined DEPOSITION OF STRATIIBOGIE MINISTERS. 401 spiritual. to stand by their oath of allegiance/' Mr. Cunninly to move thedeposi- \)j^i hardly had the words escaped his lips when Dr. Chalmers rose, — and twenty voices exclaimed, ** Dr. Chalmers is here." Advancing slowly to the table, he said, simply, but with great solemnity of manner, " that, after the judgment already come to by the house, he had no alternative but to move, that the seven ministers be deposed from the office of the holy ministry." The motion was seconded by the Rev. Dr. Brown of Lanorton. Mr. Clark of Inverness, and Mr, Brodie of Monimail, were in favour of the milder sentence of suspension, sine die ; a sentence which, in the circumstances, could hardly have failed to make a laughing-stock of the assembly. The seven ministers had been suspended already, and had treated the sus- pension with contempt. Dr. Cook made no counter- Dr. Cook pro. motion to that of Dr. Chalmers, but read and laid tests. upon the table a formal " protest against the resolu- tion of the general assembly to depose the seven ministers of the presbyteiy of Strathbogie." This disrespectful document, after repeating the now familiar doctrine of the moderate party, that the established church was bound " to be subject to the civil power in all matters declared by the supreme DEPOSITION OF STRATIIBOGIE MINISTERS. 4^5 civil authorities of tlie country to affect temporal chap, xiii. rights," proceeded to announce that the subscribers could not cease to regard the individuals who had been deposed as being still ministers, just as if the proceed- ings against them had never been instituted. When ^a^emess of the paper containing this rebellious declaration was atepa??yu} laid upon the table, a multitude of members rushed this'protcst. on the instant from the moderate side of the house, eager to subscribe it. Nothing could have been more unseemly than the disorder which, at a moment so solemn, this most unnecessary movement caused. Nor was it till these zealots in the cause of erastian- ism had been again and again reminded of a fact, perfectly well known, that they would have ample opportunities at the close of the meeting that night, or alter the reading of the minutes on the following day, to attach their names to the protest, — that the tempo- rary tumult was overcome. When silence had been at length obtained, the Rev. Dr. Brown, of Glasgow, was called upon to engage in prayer, — as is always done in the courts of the church of Scotland, before pro- nouncing the awfully solemn sentence of deposition. This impressive service concluded, the moderator rose, and *' in the name, and by the authority of the The sentence Lord Jesus Christ, the alone King and Head of the uot?""" church,'' deposed the seven ministers by name " from the office of the holy ministry," and ''discharged them from exercising the same, or any part thereof, under pain of the highest censure of the church." Intima- tion of the sentence was at the same time appointed to be made in the usual form, from the pulpits of the seven ministers, and their churches were declared 406 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.xiii. vacant. The summer smi was already on the verge of the eastern sky, when the assembly adjourned; and the crowd, a great part of which for nearly four and twenty hours had thronged the church of St. An- drew's, issued forth into the quiet streets of the nor- thern metropolis, — startling, by their hurrying foot- steps and eager converse, many a sleeping citizen, as they passed, in dense groups, beneath his windows in quest of their own homes. On the following day, Friday, the 27th of May, the protest of Dr. Cook and others, which had been nieprotestof ., -^ , ,. . , , , i i -k ir J^rcook allowed to lie on the table, was brouo-ht, by Mr. House. Dunlop, under the notice of the house. A copy of it had appeared that morning in a newspaper, com- monly regarded as the organ, in matters ecclesias- tical, of the moderate party in the church. As printed in that journal, the protest contained an intimation that those who subscribed it would not cease to hold ministerial communion with the deposed ministers. No such intimation, however, was em- bodied in the actual protest which Dr. Cook had given in. It was understood at the time that the original draft had contained such a clause, but that it had been struck out at the instance of some of the more cautious members of the party before it was signed. Even without that clause, the paper was still abundantly offensive, — but the majority of the assembly were as desirous to avoid any new collision, as a certain section of the minority seemed eager to Mr Duiiio 's ^om't it. " The giving in of such a declaration," tS.°°et. said Mr. Dunlop, "is most unusual. Members of the house are entitled, in their reasons of dissent, to DEPOSITION OF STRATH BOGIE MINISTERS. 4()'T relieve their conscientious scruples by testifying chap.xhi. against proceedings of which they disapprove. This is the constitutional form of doing so ; and I shall ever desire to preserve that freedom. No member, however, has a right to call on the house to receive such a declaration as this." He was not disposed, however, notwithstanding of its highly disresj^ectful character, to go further than to move that it be not received. '' I rejoice," he continued, " very much to find that it does not go so far as I had supposed when it was read. I rejoice that the parties sub- scribing it, while they state their opinion, have not committed themselves to follow out in action that course which the declaration would seem to point at. I feel too, a confident assurance, that, on calm reflec- ^JJe'that'"'' tion, they will adopt no such course, — which would erswiTub-' ■,,.■, • f ^ stsin from com])cl this house to resort to most painful measures, thisthreat- ■■- J- ' eued rebel- and would create a grievous breach and schism in this ^'°°' church. My chief ground of confidence that this will be so, is the conviction that a spirit from on high has, since we met, been poured out upon us, — so that the very subjects which, in their native tendency, might have been expected to produce irritation, and to increase the breach between us, have been over-ruled to bring us closer together, and to promote among us feelino-s of attachment and re'rard." ••' '"" "^ " Having this assurance, and making all allowance for the feelings which must have been created in the minds of our opponents by the sentence of yester- day, I desire to forbear from founding any proceed- ings on this declaration." The kindly and christian tone of Mr. Dunlop's remarks, evidently told upon ^tonfJTfMf. , PI 1 "1 PI 1 • Dunlop's some at least of the subscribers of the obnoxious address. 408 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. CHAr.xiii. paper, and Dr. Cook hastened to say that he would not oppose the motion for rejecting it. ''No one," Dr. Cook's he said, ''would deplore a schism more than he to reVonT\vould , but thouo-h they felt themselves conscientiously to Mr. Dun- ' ' . . . iop"«=»pp^"'- bound to do what they did, they did not intend to act on the declaration at present ; and he hoped nothing would occur to injure the good feeling at present existino-, or to hasten that which all of them would deplore." Dr. Bryce, who seemed rather disap- pointed at this closing up of the expected breach, made an effort to re-open it, in which he was cordially seconded by Captain Elphinston Dalrymple. The house, however, was not disposed to indulge these gentlemen with a martyrdom which, even if granted, would, in their peculiar position, have cost them no- thinof, — and which, therefore, it needed no extraor- dinary effort of courage on their part to invite ; and so the cloud which seemed big with tempest melted quietly away. The condemnation of Mr. Edwards, the hero of the Marnoch intrusion, followed, as a matter of course, upon the condemnation of his intruders. The church could not recognize the validity of spiritual acts done in defiance of the sentence which had suspended the very men by whom they were performed, from the exercise of all ministerial functions. The ordina- tion of Mr. Edwards, and his settlement as minister of the parish of Marnoch, were in these circum- stances, necessarily null and void. The general assembly treated him accordingly, as being still nothing more than a simple licentiate of the church. It would have been altogether superfluous, immediately after the full discussion the whole subject. had received Case of Mr. Edvrards. DEPOSITION or STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 499 in connection with the case of the Strathbogie minis- chap.xhl tors, to go over the same ground again, in disposing of that of Mr. Edwards. When his case was called, Motionofwr. Cumiinj;- Mr. Cunningham, without a single remark, moved — ''^i'^eMr''" " That the general assembly approve and confirm the h^Ticensef sentence of the commission, finding the libel relevant and proven : find Mr. Edwards guilty of the charges libelled : deprive him of his license as a probationer : and declare him incapable of accepting a call from any congregation, or of admission into any office as a minister of this church : and prohibit and discharge all ministers of the church from employing him to preach in their pulpits." Dr. Hill moved as an amend- ment, to the effect that as Mr. Edwards had done nothino- but what he was entitled to do — " the general assembly do not consider him in any respect censur- able." The amendment was negatived without a ^^^^^^^^^ division, and the motion of Mr. Cunningham adopted nSved" , c ^ mi • ^ without a as the sentence oi: the court. ihe same evening the aivisiou. assembly agreed, at the request of the parishioners of Marnoch, to allow a call to be moderated in to Mr. Henry, — the individual whom the patrons had pre- sented after their first presentee, Mr. Edwards, had been rejected by the church courts. The assembly in granting this request, made no pretensions to con- fer on Mr. Henry any right to the benefice : but the mere fact that the benefice had, for the present, been forfeited by the church, was no reason why the people should be left without a minister to care for their souls. It may be enough to add here, in passing, that ^biytuthoV- Mr. Henry was soon after settled as minister of Mar- settlement '' of Mr. Henry noch, to the entire satisfaction of the parish, — and niiiuster A novel at- tenii 410 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.xiii. that, as a minister of the Free church of Scotland, he is de facto the minister of the parish still. The assembly, however, was not yet done with the case of Strathbogie. On the evening of Saturday, the 29th of May, the second day after the sentence of ipTmade dcposltiou had been pronounced, a scene occurred, fheSm"/ which created very great excitement in the house, — ^" and which jiainfuUy proved to what extremes the opponents of the independent jurisdiction of the church were now prepared to go, in carrying out their own erastian views. The house was in the midst of a discussion on the eldership. Allusion has been made in an earlier chapter to the labours of a com- mittee on this subject, and to an important reform which on their recommendation had been effected in 1836. That committee had been subsequently con- tinued from year to year, and it was another recom- mendation of theirs, which was at this moment under the consideration of the assembly. According to the then existing system, elders were chosen upon the close burgh system, — those already in office having the sole right of electing others. Instead of this, the committee proposed, that the members of the congre- gation should be empowered to choose a certain number, — and that from amono- these, the existing elders, in their collective capacity as a kirk session, should be entitled to select the number needed to fill up the vacant places. Several other plans had been Wliile tlie di""ussing suggested to the committee, but this was the one they 8hfp!the' had agreed to recommend to the assembly. Dr. Lee, moderator makes a commuiiica' tion to the Absenibly, _ principal clerk of assembly, was in the act of objecting to the recommendation of the committee, when the DEPOSITION OF STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 411 moderator begged leave to interrupt liim for a moment, chap. xiii. that lie might lay before the house an important com- munication he had that instant received. The com- munication in question, was a letter addressed to him as moderator, by Mr. Alexander Peterkin, agent for . .. .. . , Itisannonn- the Strathboffie ministers, intimatmaj that there was cedthatau o ' o agent and a a messenger-at-arms in attendance at the door of the at-arSre house, prepared to serve the officials of the assembly aemandi'ng with an interdict which had been issued that morninsf by the lord ordinary, one of the judges of the court of session, against the moderator, and all others, to pro- hibit them from carrying into effect the sentence of deposition, which the assembly had pronounced upon the seven ministers. Mr. Peterkin requested to know whether the doors of the house were to be kept closed, as they now were, against the messenger-at-arms. ''As this matter," said Mr. Dunlop, " concerned not only the freedom, the independence and the dignity of the church, and of this its supreme court,but also deeply concerned the dignity of their sovereign lady the queen, whose commissioner was supposed to be present with them, he conceived that they should have his Grace's ??"*^o ,, ' •' Holyrood to personal presence before any answer was returned to a commis-'" message such as had been sent to them ; and therefore fict" " he proposed that a deputation should be sent to his grace, the commissioner, to acquaint him with the message." The propriety of this course was too obvious to be disputed ; it was accordingly at once assented to, and a deputation consisting of Mr. Dunlop, Principal Dewar, and Mr. Buchan of Kelloe, was authorized to l)rocecd to Holyrood Palace and to inform his Grace of what had occurred. The interdict was, of course. \Miat would have been implied by serving an interdict in presence of tlie Commis sioncr. 4]^ 2 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ill the agent's possession early in the day, — but he had not ventured to attempt to get it served during the forenoon session of the assembly, when the com- missioner was actually in the house. In the eye of the law, the presence of the queen's commissioner was the same thing, as the presence of the sovereign her- self. To have served an interdict in the face of the representative of the crown, would have been to charge the crown with having countenanced a violation of law. The legal adviser of the Strathbogie ministers, not being prepared to venture on this somewhat hazardous experiment, attempted to steal a march both upon the house and upon his Grace, by coming upon the assembly at the evening session, at which it was not usual for the commissioner to attend. An order which the door-keepers had previously received, to admit into the body of the house none but members, defeated this little legal stratagem; and kept the agent and the messenger outside. The debate on the eldership had, meanwhile, been resumed, and the business was taking its ordinary course, when the deputation returned and stated that the commissioner would immediately be present. Having, no doubt, been made aware of The assent wliat was goiug ou, Mr. Peterkin and the messenger reurefrom disappeared, — not, however, till the former individual iSuie had, by letter, acquainted the moderator that the interdict had been left in the hands of the door-keeper, and that through him, he, Mr. Peterkin, would hold it to have been duly served upon the parties against whom it was directed. The debate on the eldership was going on when the commissioner entered the assembly, and took his place CoinniiS' sioner ar- rives. DEPOSITION OF STRATHBOGIE MINISTERS. 41.3 on tlie throne. By authority of the house the chap.xiii. moderator pubHcly communicated to his Grace the circumstances which had taken place, and tendered to him the grateful acknowledgments of the assembly for his prompt attendance. *'I shall at all times," said speech of the the commissioner, addressing the assembly, '* endea- sio»er. vour to be present with you when you require my presence. It is my duty to do so; and in the exercise of that duty I trust that I shall not be found wanting, whether that duty call upon me to uphold the rights of the assembly, or to support and maintain the authority and prerogatives of the crown, if they shall be attempted to be infringed from any quarter what- ever." A long and eager discussion ensued, the object of which, on the side of the moderate party, was to draw forth an admission from the house that the interdict had been duly served. It was agreed that Mr. Peterkiu, who had now come back without the mes- The Assembly senger, should be allowed to lay on the table the lg^^,\l^l papers which had been left in the hands of the door- tHe'paiws^ keeper; but the assembly declined to look at them, brought on or to say anything about them whatever. Although ^ut refuses this course sufficiently guarded the assembly from being held to acquiesce in this attempted outrage upon its independent authority as a spiritual court, the simpler and better way of accomplishing this end would, probably, have been to have followed the advice, given in a speech of eminent ability, by Mr. J. Clark Brodie, to take no notice at all of Mr. Peterkin*s second letter to the moderator, but to go on with the business of the house as if notliinj^ close of his ministry by instructing the lord advocate, chap.xiii as Lord Aberdeen urgently recommended, to take steps against the general assembly. In the course of the discussion which followed, the Marquis of Nor- manby, secretary of state for the home department, spoke of the courts of law and the courts of the church as co-ordinate authorities. Lord Aberdeen protested i;^grdsAber. against the doctrine which this language involved; f^uSi^T _ , _^ - . • r ^ ^''6 idea tliat and Lord Jirouojham was at pains to intorm the peers ti.e civii and <^ ■■■ -•• ecclesiasti- that the General Assembly was no more co-ordinate areco-ordi- with the court of session than a master in chancery was co-ordinate with his chief, the lord chancellor of England ! And these were the views upon the strength of which the claims of the church of Scotland were to be treated with scorn. The Marquis of Bread- albane and the Duke of Argyll strove to throw the oil of their mild and friendly interposition upon the troubled waters of the house ; but the Strathbogie sympathizers were too wrathful to be appeased, and the poor church of Scotland and her unfortunate assembly were held up, to the close of the discussion, cimrch held before the assembled peerao-e of Enoland, — of whom againJtthe it may, without offence, be affirmed that they knew very little of the real merits of the question in dispute, — as rebels against the law of the land. With such views and feelings prevailing in the high places of parliament, the hope of a satisfactory legis- lative settlement of the church's difficulties could not be otherwise than faint indeed. In circumstances so adverse, the Duke of Argyll, even if an opportunity of pressing his bill had been granted, could have had no reasonable prospect of getting it through the house II. 2 D 418 THE TEN YEA.RS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xiii. of lords. That opportunity, however, his Grace did \^dian-eof ^^^^ obtaiii. Bj 0116 of thosc movements in the ever- ministry. g^jifti^g com'se of huiiian affairs, which indicate to the devout and reflecting mind the presence and power of that unseen Hand that is continually controlling all events, an effectual arrest was laid, for the time at least, on the interposition of parliament. On the 5th of June the ministry, which, for a considerable period, had been visibly losing strength, was defeated by a majority of one, upon a vote of censure pro- posed by Sir Robert Peel. On the 22d of the same Dissolution of month parliament was dissolved, — the ministry still parliament. ■•• . . continuing in office, and waiting to receive from a new house of commons the verdict that should either re-establish their authority or take it away. In the struggle for power between the two great political parties in the state, which necessarily ensued at the elections, the Scottish church question became in many j^laces, and especially in Scotland itself, the cheval de hattaille of both parties alike. It was evi- dently, indeed, with no little discomfort and distrust that many of the candidates bestrode this somewhat ^nVthe"°°' I'Gstive and unmanageable charger. A few indeed, JueTtion. a very few, rode fearlessly like men who were at home in the saddle, while the greater number betrayed evi- dent symptoms of alarm, — lest they should either be unhorsed altogether, or carried much farther than they had any inclination or intention to go. Immediately before the dissolution of parliament, the Duke of Argyll, accompanied by a small deputation from the church of Scotland, had held an interview on the subject of his Grace's bill with Sir Robert THE EVENTS OF 1841. 419 Peel. The sentiments which, on that occasion, Sir cuap.siii. Robert expressed in regard both to the bill and to the late proceedings of the general assembly, gave just alarm to the members of the deputation. Accordingly when it was found, shortly after, that almost every- Dispute in '' •' reference to where in Scotland, Sir Robert Peel's political friends "entfotsir were striving to make it appear that the church's ^''''"'^ ^^''• only hope of obtaining a satisfactory measure from parliament, was inseparably bound up with the triumph of the conservative candidates, it seemed to one of the members of the deputation above alluded to, to be no longer warrantable to conceal from those who were friendly to the church's claims, what were the actual views and intentions of the conservative chief. Mr. Dunlop, the individual in question, made accordingly such communications upon the subject, to private friends, as truth and duty seemed to him to require. The information so given, as was to have been expected, was not long in finding its way to the hustings and to the public journals, and shortly afterwards it drew forth a letter upon the subject from sir Robert Sir Robert Peel to the Duke of Aro-yll. In the open- totiieDuke O*' -1^ of Argyll on ing paragraph of this letter the writer complained that ^i»« ^"'^J'^'^'- *'vei-y gross misrepresentations" had appeared in the Scotch newspapers of the sentiments which he had expressed at the interview on the affairs of the Scotch church. The letter proceeded- thereupon to relate, '' to the best of his recollection," what he had actually said. It amounted to this, that ''he would not enter into an engagement to support the bill" of the Duke of Argyll, and that '' even if he were to admit, which he could not, that the provisions of that bill were in 2d2 from the Chiircli. 420 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. tlieiiiselves wholly unexceptionable, still that they ^fwhThc ^®i'^ prospective only, and that he did not think the tiieS" house of lords would consent merely to legislate for deputLlion the future, if the general assembly should persist in its claim of authority to depose ministers of the church upon this ground, that these ministers had obeyed the law, as interpreted by the supreme court in Scotland, and by the house of lords upon an appeal preferred to that tribunal, at the instance of the church of Scot- land." As the comments of the newspapers to which Sir Robert Peel alluded, were founded on a letter sent to a private friend by Mr. Dunlop, that gentleman now felt himself called upon to come forward, and to vindicate the statement he had formerly made. ''My account," he said, in a letter addressed to Sir Robert Dunloii op-s sam? sub- '^ Peel, " of the sentiments expressed by you, as given Robert Peel \y^ ^hc letter, was, that these were in substance to the effect that no such bill as the duke's could be allowed to pass, and that any settlement must embody provi- sions for secm-ing the submission of the church to the civil courts generally, and in particular for the restora- tion of the deposed ministers of Strathbogie." After showing what was implied in Sir Robert Peel's own report of the sentiments he had uttered, Mr. Dunlop remarked, that " so far from my account being a ' very gross misrepresentation' of these, the substance of it seems to me to be contained — though very much diluted — in your own statement. And I the more readily, therefore, assume, that these terms were not applied to that account, but to comments that may have been made upon it." Mr. Dunlop next pro- THE EVENTS OF 1841. 421 ceeded to give his own recollections of the interview, chap. xin. which he summed up in the following terms : — *' A good deal of conversation ensued on these points, the whole tenor of which tended to impress the deputation with the conviction, that it was your oj)ionion that no measure could pass, or ought to pass, which did not, on the one hand, settle the Strathbogie case, by the restoration of the deposed ministers, — and did not provide against the recurrence of similar cases or new conflicts in future, by securing the submission of the church to the civil courts." The subsequent conduct sir Robert of Sir Robert Peel sufficiently proved that his senti- '°'\^"f k ments had neither been misinterpreted nor misunder- ^^'3^^!°^ stood, — in so far at least as Mr. Dunlop was con- cerned. It is no more, indeed, than is due to Sir Robert Peel to state, that he never at any time, appears to have said or done anything that could possibly mislead the church, or its friends, as to his views. With the caution which belongs to his cha- racter, and which became his responsible position, he avoided for the most part any ultroneous or premature disclosure of his sentiments, — but in so far as these were at any time indicated, whether in personal interviews or in public communications, they were always hostile to the recoo-nition both of the non-intru- ^ir ■^°''«'"* •' o Peel was sion principle and of the spiritual freedom of the aS'tihe church. There is one expression that occurs in his cimrdu letter to the Duke of Argyll, which is of itself enough to show how firmly rooted in his mind was the idea of the absolute supremacy over the church of the courts of law. He speaks of the fact that the appeal to the house of lords, in the Auchterarder case, had 422 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. beeii ''prefeiTGcl at tlie instance of the cliurcli of Scot- Thy^gJ^^p^Uand," — as if it implied something like bad faith on fart umt the the part of the church in her subsequent proceedings app'^Ldthe towards the Strathbode ministers. * They had done Aucliterar- ^ "^ dercase. nothiug but what they were bound to do, by virtue of a decision pronounced on the church's own aj)peal, — and the church, instead of punishing them for obeying that decision, ought in honesty, as the appellant against whom it was given, to have obeyed it herself/ All this is not said in so many words by Sir Robert Peel, in his letter to the Duke of Argyll, but all this is very dextrously insinuated. It of course implies an entire misconception both of what the church did appeal, and of what the decision in question did in point of fact determine. It implies that the church appealed something more than the single point — Did the rejection of Mr. Young, in terms of the veto-law, carry the usual civil consequences of voiding his claim to the benefice, and of requiring the patron to present another man? audit further implies, that the judg- ment pronounced in the court of session, and affirmed by the house of lords, settled something more than Thetnievicw that siuo'le Doiiit. Had Sir Robert Peel's view of the of that fact. O •■■ matter been correct, there would have been no need for the second Auchterarder case. The decision in that second case was not pronounced for twelve months after the date of his letter ; and not till then was it found, by the civil courts, that the courts of the church could be compelled to take a presentee on trials, and to perform other spiritual acts, under the usual com- pulsitors of law. Even that second decision did not prove that the church courts were bound to have done THE EVENTS OF 1841. 423 what the recusant ministers of Strathbogie did, — chap.xiii, namely, to have proceeded with the trials and settle- '^was^„^oV''' ment of a presentee who had been formally set aside undcrthe^" by a sentence of the supreme court of the church. Aucbterar- •' ^ der decision, What it did bind the church to do was something Ihe clvii'* ^° different. It bound her to appeal from what she waYoniy'^ • • 1 1 p liouud to ap- reo-arded as the unconstitutional encroachment of the peai against o tliem to tlie courts of law to the state itself. If the state, as ^"'"'' rej^resented by the legislature, should refuse upon such an appeal being made to it to alter what the civil courts had declared to be the law, — the church must then either bend her neck to the yoke of the civil supremacy, in matters spiritual, or surrender the immunities of her establishment, and break off alto- gether from her union with the civil power. Sir Robert Peel arrived at his conclusion, as to the church's duty, by a much shorter and more summary process, — but he did so, only by not adverting to the facts of the case. It is almost superfluous to add, that the assumption on which his insinuation was %^ founded, proceeded on the additional mistake, that the Strathbogie ministers were deposed simply for obeying the judgment of the courts of law. It might have been quite justifiable to depose them for obeying, in matters spiritual, the decree of a civil tribunal, in defiance of the contrary decree of their ecclesiastical superiors : but that was not the ground on which they were in point of fact deposed. The libel against them did not contain one sino;le reference to their havinor taken Mr. Edwards on trials. The offence charged against them was that of exercising, in defiance of the church, a ministry from which they had been sus- Sir Robert sumptiou foiuided on a mistake as to tlie real facts of (he case. 424 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiAP.siu. pended by the general assembly, and for applying to the civil power to stop tlie discipline of the church, and to hinder the church from performing her spiritual functions. All this must be sufficiently obvious to every one who has been at pains to acquaint himself with the real state of the question: and the circumstance that Sir Robert Peel proceeded so confidently on an Heionkecut entirely opposite supposition, serves only to show that position"' he had never contemplated the church's position from from only ^ ■"- ^"g';^p°""°*' any point of view but one. The absolute supremacy of the courts of law was evidently, in his mind, a first principle. We have seen that it was by assuming this to be the fact, and not by the construction of statutes, that the civil courts themselves reached their conclusion : and both his English church ideas, and his notions of political expediency, made that conclu- sion of very easy adoption to his mind. One thing seemed plain, that whatever his views of the Scottish church question might be, he was evidently destined to have, as an instrument, the disposal of it in his own ^uamenr""" hands. Thc elections sealed the fate of the whig the ministry. The new parliament assembled on the 24th of August. An amendment u]3on the address in answer to the queen's speech, was moved in both houses, — an amendment, expressive of want of confi- dence in the existing government. That amendment was carried in the house of lords by a majority of 71 : and in the house of commons by a majority of 92. On the 30th, the ministry resigned, and Sir Robert Sir u. Peel Peel was immediately iutrustcd with the formation of takes office •' miiAugust, ^|jg j-^g^ government, — that government, under whose auspices the blow was destined to be struck which whig minis, try THE EVENTS OF 1841. 42i terminated the ten years' conflict, and brought on the chap xiii. disruption. While these important movements were taking place in the political world, the state of things was every day assuming a more alarming aspect within the church itself. It will be remembered, that when the protest against the deposition of the Strathbogie ministers was discussed in the general assembly, Dr. Dr cook's Cook spoke of it simply as a declaration of the views mise'ofi' '■ , . . truce. held by those who had subscribed it, — adding that they did not intend to act upon it at present, and expressing the hope that '' nothing would occur to injure the good feeling at present existing, or to hasten that which all of them would deplore." It will not be wondered at, that this statement should have been understood to mean, that there was to be, on the side of Dr. Cook and his friends, at least a cessation of hostilities : that nothing would be done on their part to provoke or encourage a fresh outbreak against the authority of the assembly, or to hinder an amicable adjustment of those questions which now divided, and threatened to dismember the church. For nearly two months after the rising of the assembly, this seemingly friendly attitude of the moderate party was believed to have been faithfully observed. At leuQ-th, however, a a document •' . . . * comes to document came to light, which painfully proved, that g^o^g"t'j|aJ' in resting upon this pleasing supposition, the assembly waVhoiiow were leaning upon a broken reed that was already nrZ prepared to pierce their side. The document in question was a printed " statement for the presbytery of Strathbogie, and for the minority of the general assembly," It was dated, "London, June, 1841," scribers of the do meut. 42 G THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.xiii. and must have been drawn up while the concniatory tone of Dr. Cook's explanation was still sounding gratefully in the ears of those to whom it was addressed. Tiiesui,- The statement was sisfned by Principal M'Farlan, scribers of O J X ' thedocu- jy^, jj-|i^ jy^, Bryce, Mr. Grant of Leith, and Mr. Robertson of Ellon, — five of the most prominent members of the moderate party. Instead of repeating the lanouagje, which in their name, Dr. Cook used in the assembly, — instead of indicating an earnest desire that nothinof mioht occur to widen the breach, or to precipitate the collision between them and their opponents, — the authors of the statement announced their determination to do what must render the breach irreparable, and expressly solicited the adoption of measures by the civil power which could have no other effect than to push matters to extremities at once. Speaking of the sentence pronounced upon the Strath- bogie ministers, they said — " The minority and those Terms of the document. totheautho- that adhere to them, cannot, in conscience, submit to vity of the CI I inch de- clared to be mutter of conscience. this decision : they cannot, in conscience, whatever may be the consequences, fail to act in oj)position to it : as the conviction is indelibly impressed on their minds, that by such submission, or even such failure to resist, they would act in palpable violation of their oaths of allegiance and of their ordination vows.'* Why then did they not at once adopt this course and carry out this resolution ? It was not, it is true, what Dr. Cook had led the assembly to look for, — but if conscience pressed them to adopt it, wherefore did they hesitate to do so ? Was it from their unwilling- ness to aggravate the church's difficulties, by throwing new obstacles in the way of a peaceful settlement, and THE EVENTS OF 1841. 427 by embroiling them in new conflicts with their chap.xik. brethren ? Nothing could have been more pleasing """ron^fsein than to find, that this, which was undoubtedly the wyftSd sentiment uttered openly in the assembly by Dr. Cook, ^'["J'^^'fj^'J'''^ had been also the sentiment secretly whispered in London London in the ears of politicians and of men in power. Unhappily, however, the London statement admits of no such interpretation. While it tells the govern-- ment that the subscribers mean to defy the sentence of the general assembly, it calls on the government to take measures to protect them from the conse- quences of this ecclesiastical rebellion. They were at pains to point out two ways, by one or other of which the object they had in view might be secured. The one of these ways was, by " a declaratory act of the legislature;" an act, that is, condemnatory of the ^icrii.ws of assembly's proceedings, and giving to the principles mentseek and actings of those who were resisting the assembly's ^™™ \'^« authority the sanction of the law of the land. There poseY/etei- were objections, however, to this mode of proceeding, tuecSurck which appeared to the subscribers of the statement, to render its adoption of more than doubtful ex- pediency. " There is reason to fear," said they, " that in the present agitated state of the church, its enactments (those, that is, of the declaratory act pro- posed), however correct and just in themselves, might prove, by their being suddenly presented to the public mind, the unhappy occasion, under the distorted views which, by certain parties, would infallibly be taken of deprecate" them, of leading to schism, before they could be rio-htly ofanyde-" ' o ' J o .^ claratory understood." This seems, at least, to say that the ^vour!''"' subscribers of the statement were afraid no declara- 428 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. torj act, suited to tlieir purpose, could be framed that would not, of necessity, make so palpable an asser- tion of the erastian principle as no ingenuity could reconcile with the church's fundamental doctrine of the sole Headship and supremacy of Christ. There was, however, another alternative. Let the law stand as it is, — but let the executive government interpose. They would " Au iustructiou to the law officers of the crown to mtoposi-^ maintain, in the civil courts, the cause of the ministers tion of the n ^ i i i i • ^o^e''r-to *^f Strathbogie, and of others who may be placed ni cutfo7or' similar circumstances, — and to prosecute for breach of break the" intevdict, &c., those who may, in opposition to inter- civil court's } ^ > J ' i i interdicts. (Jids grautcd by the competent court, mvade the rights of such parties, has also been thought of as a means of remedying the present evil." This, to say the least of it, was a harsh and revolting measure, and it would have been gratifying to find that it had been named only for the purpose of dissuading government from having recourse to it. They knew that their brethren, — such men as Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Gordon, Dr. Brown, Dr. Patrick M'Farlan, — men venerable for their years, and still more for their learning and piety, had not only broken the interdicts to which the " statement" referred, but would consider it as much a matter of conscience to break them again, as Peter and John considered it a matter of conscience to break the interdict of the rulers of the Jews. Was it possible ^IJicl'tiou they could invoke the aid of the civil power to harass implied. ^^.^1^ fines, or to immure in a jail, men like these, — men whose very names were at once the best bulwarks and the brightest ornaments of the church ! If, indeed, " her majesty's government shall be of opinion, that THE EVENTS OF 1841. 429 less stringent measures may be effectual for tlie accom- ^"^''' ^^^^' plishment of the object in view, tliey" — the authors of the statement, were " not only willing, but most anxious, that such measures should have, in the first instance, a fair trial." But, on the other hand, they ungenerous ' ' 'J and uiiwor- did not hesitate to say, that if the instruction to the ^iLSir law officers of the crown, above described, should be bl'eatbes"" resolved on by the government, in preference to the expedient of passing a declaratory act, the minority of the general assembly *'will have much reason to be satisfied, as by so significant an interposition on the part of government in support of the law, they will be assured of protection in the ftiithful and conscientious discharge of their duty." The whig government were not disposed to issue any such instructions, — and the majority of the assembly remained, as has been already mentioned, for a considerable time altogether uncon- scious of the mine which the leaders of the minority were so assiduously driving beneath their feet. The result of the elections had shown, as early as the middle of July, what the fate of the government must be ; and in the now near prospect of the accession of T^^e^pro^pect Sir Robert Peel and Lord Aberdeen to power, it So^'^"" seemed as if the moderate party felt that the time had f^mAo haveencoxir- arrived for breaking the truce, and publicly renewing lf\^^^^^^^ a war from which they had never desisted in private «?ithS for even one single hour. Towards the close of the superiors. month of July, the insurrectionary movement began by Mr. Robertson of Ellon, Mr. Grant of Leith, and others, going to Strathbogie and holding ministerial communion with the deposed ministers, by assisting these deposed ministers to dispense the Lord's supper. 430 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. The commissioii of assembly met on the 11th of ^treSus- August in the aisle of St. Giles' church, Edinburgh, August, ' when this new act of defiance to the church's authority, 1841. . . "^ committed by a body of her own ministers, was of necessity brought under review. The case was brought up by a report of the special commission, which had been entrusted by the general assembly with the supplying of divine ordinances to the parishes of the deposed ministers. Mr. Candlish, in opening the discussion, spoke of the deeply painful duty to which he was now called to address himself, and dis- tinguished between the case of those ministers who had been guilty only of the irregularity of preaching without the sanction of the presbytery in the pulpits of the deposed ministers, and the far graver case of those who, by taking part with them in dispensing the sacrament of the Lord's supper, had treated them as if they were still undeposed, and as if the sentence Speech of the of the assciiibly had been a thing of nought. He cauiuish. alluded to the bitter disappointment these proceedings had given to ex^Dectations that were fondly cherished, and which the statement of Dr. Cook at the assembly had warranted the church confidently to indulge. In the course of his striking and solemn address, he took occasion to notice the London statement, recently come to light, and the extraordinary proposition which Comments on it coutalued, to Call " iu the aid of the civil power to the lately ■*■ persecute the church, — to persecute the church by fine and imprisonment, and this too, by members of the same communion in the Lord Jesus Christ." He shewed that in going, as Mr. Robertson, Mr. Grant, and others had done, to hold ministerial fellowship with discovered document. THE EVENTS OF 18il. 431 the deposed ministers, they had been gratuitously and chap.xiii, wantonly placing themselves in conflict with the disci- pline of the church. No civil court had required them to adopt this course. It was, therefore, as volunteers they were now rushing into this unnatural intestine war. ** I am not," said Mr. Candlish, *^ one of those who Arsument on the duty of are disposed to stretch authority very far, — not one- °i,*e'^s'en.''^ '° half so far as certain men in our church did during the cimrcif "'^ last century. I, at least, am not an advocate for church power in any high and lordly sense, and far less would I say anything impeaching the full right of ministers and members of the church to the exercise of private judgment. And now let me just endeavour to show how a sentence, such as that pronounced upon the seven ministers of Strathbogie might be regarded by me, if I could put myself in the position of our brethren opposite. I shall assume that a sentence is j)ronounced by the church depriving of the office of the holy ministry certain individuals whom I still think innocent, — whom I still regard as holy men and to all intents and purposes ministers of Christ. I shall assume that the sentence pronounced by the church is a sentence wholly unrighteous and unconsti- tutional. I shall take this position. Now, I can easily conceive that this position might lead me to believe that I had the full liberty of holding commu- nion with those individuals, but for one consideration, — the respect and reverence which I still owe to the authority of Christ in the decision of the office-bearers '^lumJ^Ti' of the church, even when I considered that decision t'lescntcuce ol tlie to be erroneous, unless it be so erroneous as to lead couw war- me to consider the church to be no longer a church at diTregwded. 432 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIII. all, but a sjiiagogiie of satan. But so long as I was prepared to admit that, however she had erred in the particular case, the church was still a church of Christ, and that her office-bearers were still entitled to exercise their authority in the name of Christ, I could not consider myself at liberty to set at defiance their sentence. This seems to me a full and broad shield for the liberty of private judgment. If I go Those minis- further, as our brethren have done, I make my elec- tors wlio had ' 'J tMki™mV tion between the communion of the deposed ministers the'depo^ed' aud tlic commuuioii of the church that deposed them; brethren, were choos- ^-^^^ \{ J fggj mysclf bouud to hold communion with ing their J andfor-*"""' thc doposcd miulstcrs, it must be because I consider churfh ^^^^* ^^^® church has sinned so grievously as to be no longer a church of Christ but to have become a syna- gogue of satan. This is the plain ground which I take as a minister in such a case. "''" "' "' Our brethren may feel themselves bound to form a separate communion, but not upon any other ground than this, that they hold the church to have forfeited her title to be called a church of Christ, and therefore to have lost all title to their obedience." The motion which S"sMn'" Mr. Candlish proposed was twofold. First, in order thofe^vho" to vindicate the authority of the church, it instructed had held • i • i i rf i' ministerial ^lic scvcral presbvteries to which the ofFending mmis- conimunion I J o poled brethi tcrs belougcd to take their conduct into consideration, and to deal with them according to the laws of the church ; and second, it proposed that a " solemn remonstrance and warning" should be prepared and addressed to those ministers, for the purpose of point- ing out the true nature of their conduct and the deadly injury which, if persisted in, it must needs inflict on THE EVENTS OF 1841. 433 the peace and unity of the church. After a lengthened chap.xiit, discussion, in which the motion was supported by Mr. Buchan of Kelloe, Mr. Dunlop, and the Rev. Mr. Cunningham, and opposed by Dr. Cook and the Rev. Mr. Robertson of Ellon, it was adopted, upon a The motion . ciiiTied liy division, by a majority of 60 to 13. Upon the motion ^otois. being carried. Dr. Cook gave in reasons of dissent, in which he and those who adhered to him signified their intention " to take such steps as may appear most effectual, for ascertaining from competent authority whether we who now dissent and they who concur with us, or they who continue to set at nought the law of the land and the decisions of the supreme civil or cook and ■•- his friends courts, in what we esteem a civil right, are to be '^''''"*- held by the legislature of the country as constituting the established church, and as entitled to the privileges and endowments conferred by statute on the ministers of that church." The resolution thus announced could not fail, if followed out, to bring the whole conflict to a final issue; and with the knowledge that was now possessed '^^'j^^j,'^^*'''"- of the sentiments of the political chiefs of the party IppeaiTo'° about to come into power, it was not difficult to con- '"" '"'"''''' ' jecture what that issue must be. Fully appreciating the emergency which had thus arisen, those who guided the counsels of the church took measures, without a moment's delay, to prepare for it. A requi- sition was addressed to the moderator of the preceding- assembly to summon a special meeting of commission, which was called accordingly, and appointed to be held on the 25th of the same month. When the day of meeting arrived, the multitude of ministers and 434 THE TEN YEAllS' CONFLICT. CHAT-.xni. elders, many of tliem from tlie most distant parts of ^hf-'ofoJm-' tlie country, wlio had convened, sufficiently showed STonse!''''' how thoroughly the crisis was understood. The t'enlaitof ^ssembly aisle, Avhich though never used for the members, j^^ectings of tho asscmbly itself, was the place com- monly occupied by the commission, proved on this occasion altogether inadequate. An adjournment took place accordingly ; and as the crowd hurried through the streets to St. Luke's church, to which the sittings of the commission were transferred, the unwonted number of the ministers and elders, and the earnest- ness of their tone and manner, as they passed along, startled even the most careless onlookers, and gave sufficient indication that some great movement was at hand. After the meeting had been re-constituted. Dr. Brunton rose. His great object in attending the commission, was to aid in preventing the threatened division. He took that opportunity of expressing his unqualified disapproval of the conduct of the Strath- Rev. nr. boOTe ministers. "He made every allowance for their Brunton's '-' ^ *' Condemns niotivcs, aud for the painful, and harrowing, and ano- bogie'minis- malous position in which they were placed ; but he considered, that so long as they continued members of the establishment, it was their duty to obey the commands of their ecclesiastical superiors. He would do this, not only from the high and holy bond of his ordination vow, but also in obedience to the law of the land ; for he maintained, that by the law constituting presbyterian government in the church, he was bound to obey his ecclesiastical superiors. If the ministers of Strathbogie had obeyed the commands of the church, THE EVENTS OF 184]. 4.35 throwing the responsibility of their conduct upon the chap.xiii. church, he was convinced the church would have exerted herself to the uttermost to save them from personal harm, — and the legislature would have seen the necessity of finding a cure for the evil, and for preventing a British subject from ever again being placed in that position." It will perhaps appear somewhat sinfrular that, entertaininof these views of the singular that f,. . 1 . V with these imperative obligation under which the Strathbogie Bmuto?/' ministers lay to yield obedience to the orders of the vSiil""^ church. Dr. Brunton should nevertheless have been tEnLs- ters in t^e one of those who voted for Dr. Cook's motion in their nembiy. favour, and who joined in his dissent against the sen- tence of the assembly by which their conduct was condemned. But, however this apparent inconsis- tency may be explained, there can be no reasonable doubt that, in what Dr. Brunton manfully expressed, very many others of the same party secretly concurred. Had he, and other influential members of that party, given forth these sentiments at the outset of the Strathbogie case, and refused to allow themselves to be dragged after men who were recklessly compro- mising the peace and safety of the church, the mis- chief might have been arrested at once, and the mutiny have been effectually put down. But now, when the matter had run its course, both the frank admissions and the friendly counsels of Dr. Brunton came unhappily too late. Harmony was not now to be restored by first condemning the Strathbogie ministers, and then setting over against their mis- conduct the errors of the church, in first enacting and then maintaining the veto-law. 2e2 Dr. Bninton's stiiteiiients now too late to 1)6 of any avail. AnQ THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.xiii. The next speaker was the Rev. Dr. Patrick speed^f^ M'Farlan. **What are the circumstances/' said he, MTarian/ ^^^.^^ ^ ^^-^^f exordiuui, *'in which we are called toge- ther this day ? A protest was taken at the last meeting of the commission by twelve individuals. Of these three were ministers of the gospel, one was a learned professor, and the remainder were elders of the church. They declared it to be their determina- tion to take such steps as might appear to them effec- tual, for ascertaining, from competent authority, whe- ther the protesters, and those who concur with them, or those who, they say, continue to set at nought the law of the land, and the decisions of the supreme court, are to be held as the established church of Scotland. This language is abundantly plain. We have no dif- ™atencd ficulty iu Understanding its meaning. Ap^Dlication is pa?uame°ut to bc uiadc to tlio Icglslaturc for an act of parliament, means. , . , . ^ i i i the object of which is to cast us out from the church, and to keep themselves in it, — to deprive the church of the pastoral labours and superintendence of her present clergymen, and to introduce into the church such as hold the principles to which I have referred, and those persons only. '' "" - Sir, at tlie reformation in Scotland, there was a very beautiful and simple definition given of the church of Christ nition of the in tliis realm. It was declared to consist of those Kefornied ciinrch. ministers of the holy evangel, whom God in mercy had raised up in this land, and of all who might succeed them in that office, and of such as communi- cate with them in word and ordinances. But the act of parliament for which our reverend brethren — I fear I must call them our reverend opponents — are about to THE EVENTS OF 1841. 437 iipplied for by Dr. Cook iind his flit" nils, will liavctoraake a new defini- tinii of the Cliurch. sue the lea'islature, is an act in which a definition of a chap.xiii. very different kind is to be given. The definition which '^'"= *''^ *° ^^ they seek to have declared will be, that the church consists of those only who will give submission in all matters, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to the secular tribunals, — who will lay the church prostrate at the feet of the courts of law ; and who, in doing so, I hesi- tate not to say, will cast aside the great and funda- mental principles of the church of Scotland — that Christ is her only King and Head, and that He has appointed her government in the hands of church- officers, distinct from the civil magistrate." If these gentlemen obtained the act they were about to apply for, they would be bound in common consist- ency, as Dr. M'Farlan told them, to make the neces- sary alterations on the confession of faith, and the other standards of the church. He would not believe that the protesters had received any encouragement from the party about to come into power, to adopt this extravagant course. He could not believe any states- man in the kingdom would be prepared to listen to their preposterous demand. Dr. M'Farlan proceeded thereafter to review the whole course which the church °evi'ews''tire" had recently pursued, and showed that even the pro- testers themselves would, a few years before, have condemned and resisted those encroachments of the civil power which they were so eager to invoke, and to confirm by statute law. Speaking of the Strathbogie ministers, and of the alleged severity with which they had been treated. Dr. M'Farlan showed how utterly groundless was the charge. " They had shown them," he said, " the utmost indulgence down to the latest proceedings of the Church. 438 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xm. moment. At the last general assembly. Dr. Buchanan ^ha-TbMu of Glasgow and himself had an interview with Princi- makejeace pal M'Farlan, Dr. Cook, and the (then) suspended strathbogie brethren. They did not meet at the solicitation of ministers. •' these brethren, but understood that such a conference would be agreeable to them. He fully expected that they were disposed to make some concession at last, and thereby to enable them to postpone, if not altogether to avoid, deposition; but not one concession have they made during the whole course of their conduct, from the moment when they avowed their determination to obey the civil rather than the ecclesiastical courts, down to the present period, when they still persist in justifying all they have done." Having noticed the peculiar time which Mr. Robert- son, Mr. Grant, and the others had chosen for bidding defiance to the church by holding ministerial com- munion with men whom the general assembly had deposed, — " the truth is," said the speaker, ** that the conservative party had obtained a majority in the Exposes iiie prescut parliament, and there might be reason to oftlusmoTe- belle vc that the new government would be favourable niuiit of tlie . , l"u'i>T"' ^0 their views. The plan was to force the majority to yield by terror; but neither terror nor any other influence would drive him from the position he occu- pied. Their opponents talked of having yielded to the call of conscience. They speak of conscience ; Mr. Grant speaks of our '^prating about conscience," and told them it was in obedience to conscience he and his associates were called upon to unite with the seven deposed ministers. If they had said they had felt bound, in honour, to sympathize with them, he THE EVENTS OF 1841. 439 could have understood their meaning; but to say that chap.xiii. they were urged on by conscience to encourage them in their rebellion against the church of Scotland is, indeed, an extraordinary thing, and makes a most extraordinary demand on the charity and credulity of the people to whom it is addressed.'* After an earnest and eloquent appeal to the elders and members of the church to stand in this great crisis by those who were vindicating principles dear to their martyred forefathers, and which were still the best heritage and the chiefest glory of their children ; he concluded an address of surpassing felicity, and force, and solemnity, in these words: — *^ If we shrink, we '^/^^^ J5^f„'^''*>' are done. If we depart from principle, there is no gmiumef- hope for us; we shall neither propitiate men in power, nor gain the respect of the country. Let us trust in God, who has been the protection of the church in ages past, — in that divine Saviour to whom we profess allegiance as the great King and Head of His church, that the struggle in which we are now to be engaged shall issue in triumph ; but if, in the mysterious providence of God, it should prove otherwise, we shall have the satisfaction, in looking back, to think that we stood forth in defence of sound scriptural principles, — and we shall never have cause to regret, though left house- less, and homeless, and without the means of support, that we preferred peace of conscience to all that is valuable to us in this world." The motion which Dr. M'Farlan submitted was in the form of a series of t/>™^'- resolutions, in which, after a short preamble alluding MFurian. "^ to the proposed application of the protesters to the legislature, a succinct account was given of the view 440 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap.xiu. wliicli tlie cliurch took of lier spiritual jurisdiction, of the use she had made of it, and of the utter subver- sion of it which the protesters were seeking to accom- plish. The resolutions further proposed, for the sake of amity and peace, that a friendly conference should be held with the protesters, with a view, if possible, to dissuade them from the course on which they were entering ; and, at the same time, in order to prepare for the worst, appointed a large committee, with Measures ap. instructions to brincf ^'the princii^les and privileges of poiutedto 11 1 1 under T)'r ^^^^^ church, as well as the dangers that may threaten Stbn's. us, before the government, the legislature, and the country at large, by deputations, public statements, meetings, and such other means as may appear expe- dient." The motion of Dr. M'Farlan was seconded by the Tiie Rev. Mr. Rev. Dr. Brcwstcr of Craig, a man not more distin- crargV "^ guished for his sound judgment, accurate learning, supportof and varied acquirements, than for his humble piety tlie resolu tion: and unobtrusive modesty. Though one of the fathers of the church, this was the first time he had ever spoken in the commission, and in the general assem- bly his voice had never been heard at all. It was a strong sense of duty which alone compelled him to come forward and to take part with his brethren in meeting this great emergency of their affairs. He came there " to express his willingness to share all the risk and responsibility, which might be attendant on the measures by which they were struggling to carry out the principle of non-intrusion, and the spiritual independence of the church. By slow degrees, and by wary steps, he had reached his pre- THE EVENTS OF 1841. 441 sent conviction regarding these principles, adlierence chap.xiii. to which was essential to their existence as a church of Christ." The occasion was pre-eminently one when *'days should speak and multitude of years should teach wisdom;" and accordingly another venerable father, the illustrious Chalmers, was the next who rose. It was not so much to argue as simply to give his testimony, that he had come to the commission. "Our solemn duty, I feel it powerfully, speech of Dr. our solemn duty is to do all that in us lies for averting this catastrophe. "''' '"" And heaven forbid that we should hasten it by any indiscretion, and far less by any disrespect or deed of violence on our part. These charges may be laid, and indeed already have been laid, against us, merely because we deem our principles of higher force than aught that relates to our private or personal interests. This we cannot help, and we must not, we dare not, and we will not try to help it, even though the powers which first conferred her. temporal privileges and distinctions upon the church should now be pleased to recall them, and we should be declared to have forfeited, at their hands, the title '^c^'anMryMd and the privilege of the established church of Scot- shmudkse land. We will not resign the higher title of the lisi^ment. church of Christ, — nor will we quit our ancient hold on the name and national appellative of the church of our own beloved land. God, the same God who turneth the hearts of men whithersoever He will, can make even our enemies to be at peace with us ; He can awaken in their giant strength the principles and recollections of other days : and the country will tell, amidst the fragments of a system which is disjointed 442 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT.. chap.xiii. g^^^^i broken up, which is the Ukest to the church of their fathers, when, with or without an endowment, we are known and read of all men as a non-erastian church." He concluded by saying — in reference to their opponents among the great, in place and power ^to'to^up"°* — ^^^^^ 1^^ ^^^^ spoken " not to stir up wrath, and as toi^'n''"^ little to propitiate favour ; but simply and altogether to open their eyes." But this, as the event proved, was a task which even Dr. Chalmers was unable to perform. Truly there are none so blind as those who will not see. This eventful commission would seem as if it had been designed in providence to give timely warning to the rulers of the land of the danger of trifling any longer with the question of the Scottish church. To the parties, on the other hand, more immediately con- cerned in these proceedings, it was doubtless designed as a rehearsal for the great day of the disruption. It was a training, wisely and graciously appointed, to familiar- ize them with the parts which they were then, in right earnest, to be called to perform. In a commission of nearly two hundred members, drawn together from all ^awM^M^th P^i'ts of the church, the resolutions moved by Dr. dksSg M'Farlan were adopted with only two dissenting voices. This result, and the solemnity with which it had been arrived at, could not fail to stagger the protesters in their purpose. They must now have seen, and those who, out of sight, were urging them on, must have seen it as well, that they had to deal with men who had counted the cost; and if they still doubted in what direction the sympathies of the people would run when the hour of trial came, they had at least some materials for helping them to a judgment on that voices. fe THE EVENTS OF 1841. 443 point, placed before them within a few hours after the cnAP.siii. commission rose. A pubUc meeting took place that ^^g '"h^same evening in St. Cuthbert's church, — a meeting the Itcufii-'' most important and influential by far which, in the J^i'^'j^'^'^^^ whole course of the conflict, had yet been held. The Ih" ctocu lower part of the church was set apart exclusively for ^"'""''" ministers and elders, of whom not fewer than 1200 were crowded into it. The rest of the church was opened to the general community, and its double galleries were thronged to suffocation, while multi- tudes, unable to gain admittance, clustered around the walls of the church. The s]3eeclies were worthy of the momentous occasion on which they were uttered. As a fitting specimen of what that evening produced, and in order to avoid repetition, let a few sentences suffice from the opening address of the chairman, the Rev. Dr. Gordon, — an address whose deep solemnity, i^r. coidon's ^ i •' -^ opening ad- and unstudied yet dignified simplicity, made it come ^JfchLTof home to every heart like the words of a martyr's con- * ^'"^^^''s. fession. " Fathers and brethren," he said, " I cannot help repeating what was stated this forenoon by a very revered friend of mine as a motive to o-ratitude, that the very painful circumstances which have brought us to the present crisis have at the same time so simpli- fied the great question at issue that I cannot conceive how any person of common understanding who gives his attention to it for one moment can now fail to perceive the real state of matters in regard to the church of Scotland. For a long time it was involved in all the tortuosities, — I cannot find a better word at the moment, — of legal questions ; and I could well sympathize with many of our people who had neither CiMP. XIII. 444 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. opportunity nor time for investigating tliose great principles on which the question rests, if they did not understand the bearings of it. But now it has come to this, and no man can fail to see it, that if we define the principles of the church as they have been recently laid down in certain documents and speeches, we must intrude ministers on all the parishes of Scotland; for if it can be in one, it can be in all, — that we are bound and astricted to intrude ministers without even the shadow of a call from the christian congregations over whom they are to be placed, and with whom the The.pomuo pastoral connection is to be formed. And more than come'r' that, — it has come to this, plainly and distinctly, that I, a minister of the church of Scotland, who have solemnly sworn before God, and as I shall answer to Him at the great day of judgment, that I believe in my heart and conscience that Christ is the great Head of the church, and that He has appointed office-bearers in it, distinct and apart from the civil magistrate, to whom He has committed the keys of His spiritual kingdom ; who are to loose and to bind, to lay on and to take off spiritual and ecclesiastical censures : — it has come, I say, to this, that I am called upon either to renounce these principles or to renounce the privileges which I hold as an ordained minister of the Church of Scot- He is caued land. I am called on to say whether I will, or will whetLror not, rcnouuce this domiia, — whether I will declare not he will , „. o n • i ' renounce a ^^j^t this articlc of tlic coufessiou of faith IS null and great article feVJon^oT'" void, — an article which I cannot, I dare not relinquish, because I have sworn to maintain it. But I am told that in maintaining these princi2:)les I am acting in violation of the law of the land. Why, fathers and His ordiii:!- tion vows bind liini lo niiuntain thiit ai-ticle. THE EVENTS OF 1841. 4^5 brethren, I took the oath to maintain that article in the confession of faith with the perfect knowledge and sanction of the state ; for the state had embodied that article in an act of parliament. And when I came forward before my people, and fell upon my bended knees and received the hands of my fathers and brethren upon my head, setting me apart to the office of the holy ministry, did the state, or did any servant of the state, interfere to say — I protest against such an act, — I protest against your taking such a pledge, — because, if you take it, you may at a future period traverse some of the findings of the courts of law. No such protest was taken against my ordination, and therefore I stand here an ordained minister of the church of Scotland, and declare that I took the oath to maintain the great principles for which we are now contending, with the perfect knowledge and sanction of the state itself. They may have changed their opinions: I have not changed mine." This important meeting was followed up by others in all the chief places throughout Scotland. At one of these, held on the 17th of September, in the city of Glasgow, a letter was read from his Grace the (late) Duke of Argyll, who had been requested to take the Great meet- . . . inginGlas- chair. His absence from the meeting, the duke said, fe7f,o^*f,',e was due to considerations *'of a private rather than of ^^''^^°^^'- a public nature, and that they in no way implied any disapproval on his part, of the principles which are now maintained by the church of Scotland, and to which he understood it was the object of the meeting to accord its public expression of support." " In these principles," continued his Grace, ''more especially gyii- Tliese demon- strations de- ter the 44(5 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. that wliicli asserts the freedom of the councils of the church, in matters ecclesiastical, from all civil control, I entirely concur; and I shall at all times he ready to state my conviction that they, upon the one hand, are no others than those which have marked her character since the reformation, and of which the constitution has guaranteed to her the possession ; and that those upon the other, adopted by the courts of law and the minority of her own assembly, are no other than those which have been uniformly antithetical to hers, and are incompatible with the integrity of her established government." The energy and promptitude with which the great moderate body of tlic officc-bearcrs and members of the church proceeding thus rcspoudcd to the call of the commission of ajpeai"^*^ asscmbly, — and the determination that was evinced to face, without flinching, all the hazards of the threatened appeal to parliament, seem to have daunted the courage of the protesters, and the appeal was heard of no more. But while the moderate party shrunk from that bolder and more manly course, it was only to pursue another more mischievous still, and better calculated to accomplish their design, — to multiply internal collisions, and in this way to throw additional, if not insurmountable, obstacles in the way of an amicable legislative settlement of the question. Such were the tactics which, with greater zeal than ever, they now pursued. It is, indeed, no more than justice to say, that as this policy originated with, so The move- was it cliicfly urged on, by the ultras of the moderate wor'kof'the party. The sentiments which, on more than one miMsm. occasion, Dr. Brunton, and a few others, publicly THE EVENTS OF 1811. 447 expressed, and in which they so unequivocally indicated chap.xiit. their disapprobation of the measures adopted by the '^^o/emte''^ extremer men of their party, were, no doubt, shared pmeS.e in by many more who lacked either the opportunity or stiusupport- the manliness to declare themselves upon this subject. ?renmt pro- Unfortunately, however, this dissatisfaction, whether '^''"^"°*" existing in secret or breaking out at intervals in public, always gave way when the conduct which caused it came to be formally dealt with by the courts of the church. Although the plots against ecclesiastical authority, hatched in Aberdeenshire, were such as could have been hatched, perhaps, nowhere else in the church, the moderate party never failed to support and defend them in the general assembly. So early as 1833, Dr. M'Crie, as was noticed in an early part of this work, drew a picture of the hereditary moder- atism of Aberdeenshire, and as the conflict proceeded, every day gave clearer and more abundant evidence that the artist knew his men. The Strathbogie case was not the only confirmation of the accuracy of his graphic sketch. Another, and one if possible yet more decisive, was now preparing in the adjacent presbytery of Garioch. The parish of Culsalmond, TiieCuisai. . o ' ' • niond case : in that presbytery, having for its minister an incum- '^°'^^ll^ bent incapable, through age and other infirmities, of discharging the duties of his office. Sir John Forbes, the patron, issued a presentation in favour of a person of the name of Middleton, to be assistant and successor. This person, a man of sixty years of age, had been already officiating as an interim assistant under the nomination of the minister, and had proved extremely unacceptable to the people. Having had the presen- 448 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chah.xiii. tation in liis favour laid before tliem, the presbytery agreed to proceed according to the forms of the act of The call, at asscmbly 1834. The day for the moderation of the 28th oc°" 'call, the 28th of October, arrived in due course, and tober, 1841. •* u^e'vetoea." although great influence was used on the part of some of those who had influence with the tenantry of the parish to obtain signatures to the call, only forty-five in a parish of a thousand souls could be induced to put their names to the document. Of the one hundred and thirty-nine male heads of families, to whom the privilege of dissenting belonged, eighty-nine exercised it against the presentee. In these circum- stances the duty of the presbytery was plain. In every case of a disputed settlement, it was at that time the standing order of the church, that proceed- ings should be stopped, and a report made to the general assembly. Of this course no party could reasonably complain. The church was in the act of neo-otiatinor with the state for such an alteration of the law as would bring the civil into harmony with the ecclesiastical law, in all matters affectinix the settle- ment of ministers. No order had been issued by any civil tribunal calling upon the presbytery of Garioch to disregard the express instructions of the church, and to proceed with Mr. Middleton's settlement : for such an order no application had been ever made. ^resoive^to '^^ ^^J ^^^^^ ^^^^ prosbytcry did resolve, in these cir- Sotwithl cumstances, to proceed notwithstanding, were, how- thfset"tfe. ° ever, to tell only a small part of the outrao-e of which they were guilty. The dissentient parishioners had, by their agent, protested and appealed to the superior church courts, and so had a minority of the members THE CULSjO^MOND CASE. 449 of presbytery. Till these protests and appeals were chap.xiii. heard and disposed of, it was contrary to both the '^ter/aur^ii' law and practice of the church to proceed with the Slfsund settlement. But this was not all. Prepared, though irpa'"^' i ' O in the case : the presbytery were, to overleap the veto-law, there |ertions!&c. was yet another obstacle behind, which the moderate party themselves had always professed to regard as insuperable. The agent of a body of the parishioners had tendered '' special objections " against the pre- sentee. The motion of Dr. Cook, in the assembly of 1834, and in that of 1839, recognized such objections as competent and legal, — and no one could deny that those offered in the case of Mr. Middleton were both relevant and important. They charp^ed him with the senous na- *- ,. tureofthe neglect of family worship, with attendnig to secular ^|;?g^^J^,„ pursuits on the Lord's day, with inattention to clerical pfe^faeef' duty, with carelessness in admitting persons to receive the sacraments, with cold unspiritual preaching, — matters which it was the solemn and bounden duty of the presbytery to investigate. Not only, however, did the presbytery refuse to entertain these objections, but they refused to pay the least regard, either to the protest and appeal of the objectors upon the subject, or to the corresponding dissent and complaint of the minority of the presbytery itself. Trampling in the dust, not only the veto-law, but every other law and usage that stood in the way of the intrusion of Mr. Middleton, they resolved to go on, — and on the 11th Presi,ytery •' T 1 • • 1 • 1 meet to of November, they accordmgly met again m the parish '':^^^li^lii of Culsalmond, to consummate this wanton and reck- Z^ll^^^^i less violation of the rules and authority of the church. A^ain, as in the case of Marnoch, '' it was winter." n. 2 F November. 450 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiAP.xLii. The stately Benachie looked down upon a deed, wliich if it lacked the purity, had at least all the coldness of the snowy mantle with which his broad shoulders were Severity of i\^^i (j^y folded rouud. The sensation which the the weather. J crowcTL- threatened proceedings of the presbytery had produced wiihstwKi- " throughout that whole district of country, was suffi- ciently shown by the fact, that when the hour of meeting arrived, not fewer than two thousand 2:)eople Avere found, re^-ardless of the driving showers of sleet that swept across the fields, gathered in a dense mass around the parish church. The presbytery met in the manse, and the agent for the parishioners having, in vain, attempted to arrest the settlement, the presby- tery, headed by the sheriff of the county, and supported by a body of constables, made their way towards the 'ttiechurci? church. When the doors were opened, the rush into that"' the edifice, of the assembled people, carried the entire corps, civil and ecclesiastical, helplessly along, and scattered its various members, without its being in any one's power to prevent it, hither and thither through the church. The scene that followed was such as might have been anticipated. The people were resolved that the offices and ordinances of reli- gion should not be desecrated by being made the accompaniments of an act so disgraceful as that which the presbytery had assembled to perform. An attempt was made, indeed, to begin the services of the day, but it turned out that, though prepared to occupy the pulpit, they had forgotten the bible. The word of God could have had nothing else to do with such proceedings, than to condemn them, — and it was not therefore to be wondered at, that the sacred and the con- fusion THE CULSALMOND CASE. 45 ;[ volume had been left behind. The captain of police chap.xiit. came, indeed, to the help of the intended preacher, by '^cr/imd^' handing up a pocket bible, but the audience had no uie'siwe. mind to listen to what they evidently accounted a mere mockery of sacred things, and after an hour spent, now by the sheriff, and now by the police, and now by the presbytery, with no other effect than to secure a display of " inimitable dumb show and noise," the united authorities made up their minds to return to ^,^]^os^tie the manse, and to do what they considered needful andrefeVto •^ the Manse. there. It is painful to have to record such scenes : the scandal which they involve is unfortunately not confined to those who cause it, — but always extends to religion itself. An onlooker well observed : — " It is not the least bitter result of forced settlements, that they displace reverent considerations of time and ^^lace from men's minds. The people assembled in the church evidently regarded the services about to be performed, as a mockery of religious rites, and only as a key to the stipend. In this light they considered them, and they acted accordingly." What took place in the manse will be best under- stood by the following extract from an Aberdeen jour- nal, whose able and everyway estimable editor""" was present, and tells what he heard and saw: — '' The parties having proceeded to the manse, a ^{,^'"^''*\°g" long consultation ensued, during which we obtained u'e'p'roceLi. admission to the lobby. At twenty minutes to two, m^s Mr. Duguid Milne (agent for the presentee) came up and asked Mr. Mitchell (agent for the parishioners), Mr. Tiuup, then editor of tlie Aberdeen Banner, 2 k2 ings ill tlie 452 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cirAP.xiiT. before members of presbytery, ' Have you anything to say to the presbytery, or what wait you for ? ' Mr. Mitchell replied — ' I am here as agent for the dissen- tients, to be present at any settlement.' Mr. Duguid Milne — ' Then you may retire, as we have private business to transact.' Mr. Mitchell — ' Am I then to understand that the presbytery are on private business ?' The Rev. Mr. Bisset, of Bourtie, (a pro- minent member of the presbytery) — ' We are here on private business just now.' '\fe'"pil°ex-''' " ^^^^ so ^^^- Mitchell and Mr. Anderson (a notary tv^ pila"thHt whom Mr. Mitchell had along with him, to attest what teryi«en- he did) wcre turned out, the doors closed and bolted, gaged witli J ^ ' ^ > JJ^'/g^*^ ''''"■ before witnesses. A few minutes after, we asked admission, as reporter for the press, and received the same answer. At ten minutes past two, Mr. Mitchell again demanded admission, and was again refused. At twenty minutes past two, he was admitted, upon a demand made to know if any settlement had taken place, mto the presbytery room; and he put the ques- tion if a settlement had taken place to the moderator. " The court was cleared, in order to deliberate on an answer to the question; and after waiting for half an hour, in the course of which he made repeated applications for admission, Mr. Mitchell, along with a notary, again entered the room, — demanding to be informed if a settlement had taken place, because he had a protest to tender against it. " The Moderator — ' The presbytery is dissolved.' '.'tfartis " Mr. MiTcnELi — ' Then I put my protest into the TiissSi ^^''^^^'^^''^ of the clerk, on the suj)position that a settle- ment has occurred.' Wien f lie agent is ; THE CULSALMOND CASE. The Clerk — ' The court is dissolved. 453 ** Mr. Anderson — * I hand you this protest, as a "^f f .'.X*^,^ notary public." (The protest was in the name of male heads of families, — and declared, on the grounds stated in the previous protest, the settlement to be null and void.) " A Member of Court to the Clerk — ' Don't take the protest :' and the members rajDidly collected their '^t'p'J^X'"' hats and retreated, — during which Mr. Mitchell read retfri!'''^'^^ part of the protest, while the clerk was collecting his books. As this functionary retired, Mr. Anderson put the protest into his hands, which he indignantly flung from him, — in contempt, as we suppose, of the civil power, — and hastily left the room. It is asserted that a settlement did take place, and that a sermon was preached. It may be so, but there was no bible visible on the presbytery table when we entered the room, — ■ though there was certainly an abundance of legal do- cuments." Such was the second act in the drama of the insur- rection of Aberdeenshire moderatism against the authority of the church. The reader will remember that it was simply for attempting to prevent such scenes as those of Marnoch and Culsalmond, and such outrages upon the religious feelings and privi- leges of the members of the church of Scotland, that parliament was to be asked to drive the evangelical and reforming party out of the establishment. A little piece of statistics, which was furnished at the time, may serve to throw some further light on the spiritual state of the presbytery of Garioch. It consisted of fifteen parishes, nine of which were under 454 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. CHAP.xni. a moderate and six under an evangelical ministry. ^stati°stTc7of It was the instruction of the general assembly that thisPresby- ^^^^^ ^ year, in every congregation, a separate collec- tion should be made for each of the great schemes, five in all, in aid of missions, education, &c., by which the church was labouring to advance the interests of Christ's kingdom at home and abroad. It will follow from this statement, that in the nine parishes served by the moderate majority of the presbytery of Garioch, there ought to have been made, during the preceding twelvemonths, forty-five collections. In point of fact, only ten collections had been made, — and the entire aororrecate of these collections was .£15 : 4s. From the CO o six parishes served by the evangelical minority, thirty collections were due. They had actually made twenty- five, and the sum raised was ^663 : 2s. The incident is not one of first-rate importance, but it has its meaning ; and there are minds to which it will reveal important truths. TiieNovcm- "^^ ^^^^ mectiug of tlic commission of assembly, on her Commis- sion and the Ciilsalmond the 17th of November, the case of the Culsalmond intrusion, with all its accompanying aggravations, was brought up by a petition, signed by eighty-nine of the male heads of families, communicants in that parish, and by certain others, complaining of the proceedings of the presbytery, asking redress, and craving sup- plj of religious ordinances, on the ground that they could not recognize Mr. Middleton as their minister. Mr. James Moncrieff, advocate, having been heard for the petitioners, it was moved by the Rev. Dr. Patrick M'Farlan, that the petition be served upon the parties complained of, and that these parties should be cited THE CULSALMOND CASE. 455 to appear at the commission in March, — or in the chap. xiii. event of no commission being held, at the ensuing '^3|o„^°J'k^''" general assembly. Further, and in the meantime, cleu'agaS the motion proposed that the Rev. William Middle- teryin' ^ ^ .... ... March, and ton be prohibited '' from officiating and administering SJS,,^;^'- ordinances in said parish," — and that the minority of aui^meau- the presbytery of Garioch be empowered and instructed to meet forthwith, and to make such arrangements as might appear to be necessary, in existing circum- stances, for supplying divine ordinances to the people of Culsalmond. Dr. Bryce was at his post, as usual, to throw his shield over the heads of the intrusion- ists. He moved, as an amendment, that the peti- tion be dismissed. The amendment was rejected, and Dr. M'Farlan's motion carried by a majority of 54 to 3. It had now become quite the order of the day, to run to the civil tribunals, to get an arrest laid upon the execution of the sentences of the church. Follow- ing the many precedents which had been furnished by other ecclesiastical delinquents, Mr. Middleton, ^^on^a^tlet thouofh the prohibition issued ag-ainst him by the com- oVnaryto r . . . . , , interdict the mission touched none of his civil riofhts as the presen- comniis- o 1 sion s sen- tee to the parish, made application to the lord ordinary *"''• to have the prohibition, with all its accompaniments, arrested and set aside. The Lord Ordinary, Ivory, refused to pass the note of suspension and interdict craved by Mr. Middleton. In doing so his lordship gave the reasons of his judgment in an able and ela- borate note. It had been argued that the case was ruled by previous decisions of the court. ^'Tlie more he has studied the matter," says Lord Ivory, ** the 456 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cnAP^iii. more has he become satisfied that the present case ^oion'jf'' does not fall within the scope of these precedents. mouta". There is no question now before the court as to the legality of the veto-act ; and the civil rights, whether of the patron or presentee, will stand perfectly unscathed notwithstanding all that has yet been done by the commission of the general assembly. The only question here is, — shall this court interfere with the proceedings of a proper church couy^t, where that court, acting within its own provhice, is dealing with a proper ecclesiastical cause, and this too while that cause is still actually depending before them." Having shown by a simple statement of facts that the case, on the very face of it, was one which the civil court might refuse even to entertain, as being obviously and altogether out of their jurisdiction, — ^his lordship went on to say, '^But if it were competent to look at the deliverance thus pronounced by the church court, it would not avail the complainers, — for on the face of that deliverance the church court appears to have done His lord- nothino- but what as a church court they were entitled ship's view "^ •' Church had to do. All that is there presented is the fact, that a ''°"^" certain petition and complaint having been submitted, they, 1. Appoint service on the parties complained against; and, 2, In the meantime, and until a final deliverance, interdict the presentee *from officiating and administering ordinances in the said parish;' and, 3. Authorize and enjoin the members of presbytery not complained of, ' to provide for the ministration of the word and sacraments in the parish, in the manner which shall appear to them competent in the existing circumstances of the parish.' Now really if such a THE CULSALMOND CASE. 457 deliverance is to be regarded as involving any matter cnAP.xiu. but what is purely and strictly ecclesiastical, and ^^'^'^^'^l '^'*''* quite within the powers of discipline belonging to the "u th"fase.'' church courts, the lord ordinary is at a loss to con- ceive what shall ever be so held. No civil interest, either of the patron or presentee, is thereby affected." Lord Ivory could not yet believe — what, however, had been again and again foretold in the general assembly — that the modern claims of the court of session to a jurisdiction in all matters which might seem to them to ''ciffect" civil rights, was a claim elastic enough to reach not only such a case as this of Mr. Middleton, but any and every case with which the courts of the church could ever be called to deal. Mr. Middleton Yud meut'' having brought the lord ordinary's decision under the uXfre- review of the first division of the court; it was there reversed without hesitation. The lord president, who moved the judgment of the court to pass the note of suspension and interdict as craved, laboured to show that somehow or other, though Lord Ivory had been totally unable to see it, the veto-law was concerned in the case. There was nothing, his lordship was obliged to allow, in the terms of the commission's sentence to prove that it was founded on any proceed- ings whatever connected with that obnoxious law. He made no attempt to answer the arfirst it to Lord Aberdeen, his lordship at once declined having anything to do with it, — because, as he stated, in a letter to Sir George, '' it would make the repeal of the veto-law illusory." As this criticism of his lordship's, while it certified the bona fide non~intru- sionism of the clause, — seemed, at the same time, effectually to extinguish all hope of Sir George's success in getting it adopted, — the matter was for the time allowed to go to sleep. " Here," says Dr. Candlish, continuing his narra- tive, " the matter rested till towards the end of September, when I was in London, along w^ith the other commissioners appointed to present the memorial toiler majesty's government. While there, I received Letter from ^ letter froui Sir Georo-e, in which he says — ' It is Sir Oeoige O ' J with feelings of the greatest satisfaction that I announce to you, by permission, or rather at the suggestion of the Dean (Mr. Hope), the result of two frank and friendly conferences which took place between us this day (22d September). He had apprized me this morning of his return to Edinburgh, and did not appear to be as full of hope as of anxiety, that the church question might be amicably and honourably adjusted : but after hearing with great patience and interest, a full statement of all my proceedings, in- cluding of course the view taken by Lord Aberdeen, and still more strenuously by Dr. Cook, in opposition to the plan which I suggested, he at once declared his own conviction that such a basis ought to be accounted satisfactory by the government and by the to Dr. Caiul. lisli. SIR GEORGE SINCLAIR'S CLAUSE. 4G7 minority: and wlien I saw him the second time, he cuap.xiv. read to me a very full, fair, and able commmiication which is to be forwarded this night to Lord Aberdeen, in which he strongly advises that, for the sake of peace, the proposed words should be introduced.' In what sense," continues Dr. Candlish, '' Mr. Hope under- stood the words proposed to be introduced. Sir Geor^-e does not in that letter distinctly state. He leaves it Remarks on to be inferred, however, that it was in the same sense byVcand- lisli. which Lord Aberdeen, as well as we, put upon them : and at a subsequent period, I remember Sir George reporting to us Mr. Hope's admission, that the bill, as amended, would enable the church courts * to enforce the veto in every particular instance if they chose:' althouoli I am inclined to believe, from what will after- wards be stated, that this admission must have been made in a very limited and qualified acceptation of that phrase : or that Sir George had misapprehended Mr. Hope."-"- The representation made by Mr. Hope had, it appears, enabled Lord Aberdeen to get over his objection to the clause, — perhaps, because he had ^j^^\,^'?,^[;g discovered that it would not render the repeal of tlie ciiedto''the' veto-law illusory. Accordinn-ly, at a meetinnf of the fng^'periiaps' non-intrusion committee, held on the 1st of October, Sir George formally requested their opinion on the proposed modification of Lord Aberdeen's bill. The committee, with becoming caution, replied that they did not feel themselves at liberty to give opinions on schemes that were still in nuhihus, — schemes not * Narrativf, (fcc, p. 9. 2 G 2 found out its real mean- ing. 4G8 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap XIV. saiictioned bj government, or by any responsible party in the state. They informed him, moreover, that they were the less disposed to comply with his reqnest, be- correspnnd- causo "the measure, even when thus amended, falls so ron-llm-"' ^^1' short of what the church might reasonably expect sion com niittee. md what she has apparently the prospect of obtain- ing," •"■ — referring, no doubt, to the Duke of Argyll's bill. To evince, at the same time, the sincerity of their desh-e to promote in every legitimate way the settlement of this agitating question, they stated to Sir George that they would immediately transmit such instructions to Mr. Hamilton, the secretary of the committee, who was then in London, as would enable him to give, on their part, a definite answer to any proposition of the nature pointed at by Sir George that might emanate from the government. In these instructions, which were disjDatched the same day, the committee pointed out distinctly the sense in which they understood the suggested modification of Lord Aberdeen's bill. " The utmost," said the committee. Opinion of '' that can be said of the bill of Lord Aberdeen with the the commit- irop^osed""" proposed modification is, that it would leave the office- bearers of the church, who hold the principles of non- intrusion in the sense now maintained by the church, free to follow the dictates of their own consciences, in each particular case of the settlement of a minister, and that it would enable them to do so without the hazard of a collision with the civil courts."! This would be at best an inconvenient and defective * I'riuted Proceedings of Non- Intrusion Committee, extracted from their Minutes, p. 7. ■ t Ibid, p. 9. SIR GEORGE SINCLAIR'S CLAUSE. 4(59 arrangement, and therefore it was only as a pis aller chap. xiv. they could consent to look at it. '^f it shall appear," ^Stir they said, " that this is the only measure which those '''"""""'''• in authority are willing to grant, and that they are prepared to grant it immediately, the church, while she could not regard it as an adequate settlement of the question, might, and certainly would, consent to act under it, and to accommodate her ecclesiastical procedure to its provisions/' For a little moment, it did seem as if the government really intended to interfere. On the very next day, the 2d of October, the committee were hurriedly assembled to consider a communication from one of their own deputies, Mr. Bruce of Kennett, who was then in London on the business of the church. At the suggestion of Sir James Graham, secretary of state for the Home depart- ment, Mr. Bruce put, in writing, this query to the committee : — " In the event of a proposal coming '^';,||['"tt?,°^ from her Majesty's government, based on the clause aScTto transmitted by Sir Georoje Sinclair to Mr. Candlish, teeaTti™' •' ^ suggestion and sent by the Dean of Faculty to Lord Aberdeen, ^'^^'am!'""' and such a proposal made on the authority of the government, will the non-intrusion committee ap- pointed by the assembly (even though they should prefer another mode) accept it as a final settlement of the non-intrusion question?" To this more official lookinof communication the committee transmitted as their reply, — that in the event of government being " disposed and prepared to carry a measure for the settlement of the church's affairs on the basis men- tioned in that query, during the present session of parliament, the committee " — understanding the mea- 4'^0 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. sui'e 111 tlie seiisG already explained — " would answer ^tfc'~ver tli^ query in terms of the instructions agreed to ^"""'^''"■y- yesterday, and especially in terms of the third article of these instructions." That third article distinctly stated that the measure in question would be so defective, and in many points of view so objection- able, that the church could never undertake the responsibility of proposing it as her own, or express any wish for a settlement on that basis. Further- more, it intimated that the church must be understood '* as at that moment earnestly desiring a more full and satisfactory adjustment," — on the footing either of the popular veto or of the positive call. So far the committee went, and no farther, — far enough to show that, out of a desire for peace, and to avert the hazards now impending over the church's establishment, they would submit to any measure that came fairly within the non-intrusion principle, — but not so far as to court a settlement so niggard and narrow as the one now proposed. The minutes of the committee, embodying these answers and instructions, having been submitted to the government, the negotiation fell at once to the Government grouud. Governmcut were not '' disposed and pre- i\li\'iie'com- pared '' to legislate in that session, — and for the mittce's ^ i i i terms, and prescut, tliereforc, the whole matter came to an end. tlie negocia- r > ' biukenoff. The two parties concerned in this negotiation parted, however, on perfectly amicable terms. On the side of the committee, a memorandum was left in the hands of Sir James Graham, in which, after referring to the leading points in these late ^proceedings, noticing the great importance of having the matter settled on a footing more broad and liberal than the one proposed. Sm GEORGE SINCLAIR'S CLAUSE. 4^1 and specifying the abuses to which the proposed plan chap.xiv. was liable, it spoke as follows : — " The church herself desires any other form of the non-intrusion principle to be sanctioned rather than one which may be liable to such abuse, or even to the suspicion of it. Both parties in the church, it is believed, would prefer a general rule to be laid down; and there can be little doubt that an arrangement might be made on the footing of the Duke of Argyll's bill or of the call, in which both might practically and even cheerfully '''t^®/a°'2'{',f; acquiesce/* In answering this communication, Sir prrr'auh'ls James Graham took occasion to observe, that should ['''="% ^ terms. the disposition recently evinced, to reconcile conflict- ing opinions and accommodate past differences, be improved during the recess of parliament, he ventured *' to believe that the terms of a just and honourable settlement may not be found impracticable." -" Meanwhile, about the middle of the same month of October, Dr. Candlish received a letter from Mr. Hope, which produced on his mind the immediate and inevi- table conviction, that — as in the case of the communica- tions of the committee and Dr. Chalmers with Lord Aberdeen the year before — they had been playing at cross purposes again, and were, in reality, as far apart as ever. In this letter Mr. Hope, having dropped alto- Letter from gether, just as Lord Aberdeen did in the spring of 1 840, pJ'canJ" the plan of the positive call, assured Dr. Candlish that he was prepared to recommend a modification of his lordship's bill more extensive even than would havebeen made by Sir George Sinclair's clause ; but, at the same • Printed Proceedings of Committee, Lc, pp. 17, IS. 472 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. time, coiiveyiiig the somewhat startling intimation, ^whidTtiie that all which this modification would accom]3lisli had Dciin's letter makes the real na- ture of l)ropnse clause. aMo'been within the legal effect of the bill as it originally l^^'"^ stood, and, that even with this modification, it would exclude the possibility of a negative being put on any presentee of a patron on the ground of the dissent of the people ! No wonder that Dr. Candlish wrote in reply, " I have very carefully weighed your clause ; it seems to me to realize what I stated to you from the first as my exj^ectation, that when the proposition was reduced to writing, the essential difference between us would clearly appear."* It were both endless and unprofitable to trace all the misrepresentations and annoyances, and hopeless intricacies, connected with this memorable and miser- able " clause," longa est injuria, longae Ambages : sed suuima seqiiar fastigia reruui. The leading particulars which we deem it sufficient thus summarily to review will be found clearly, con- cisely, and candidly stated in the following paragraph: ^re™"cr"^ " There is reason to think that, at a very early stage profiuLs""* of the negotiation, the opposite parties with whom Sir George Sinclair communicated began to put different constructions on his clause; that Mr. Hope and Lord Aberdeen, through whom the proposal reached Sir James Graham, looking at the effect which it would have when taken in connection with the rest of the bill, understood it in the sense last * Narrative, (Sic, pp. 20 — 24. SIR GEORGE SINCLAIR'S CLAUSE. 4'J'3 explained, while the members of the committee chap.xiv. considered it rather in its isolated and detached form, and the meaning which, when thus considered, it seemed to bear. To an anxious and sano^uine lover The probawe Y tlieory of of peace and a friend of both sides in this unhappy ci'^uJc!"°"* controversy, it might appear a considerable point gained to have found a general formula, or form of words, which might be held so comprehensive as to cover the difference between them. The desire of effecting an adjustment might lead such a friend, sustaininor the character of an ' amicus curice,' to overlook somewhat the limitations and qualifications with which the opposite parties respectively guarded themselves ; and without too particularly or minutely canvassing their respective comments, which, if com- pared, might have brought out the essential disagree- ment,— he might think it best to keep to the very clause itself, as a form, at least, tolerable to both, trusting that if it were once adopted, all conflicting views of it would in course of time and in the actual working of the measure, be cleared up, — not perhaps sufficiently adverting, to the absolute impossibility of the arrangement going even so far, as to the framing or revising of the bill in its final state, without the real opinions of the parties in regard to it, being brought clearly out in a way impossible to be evaded. Such, I believe, has been the course, and such the issue of every negotiation hitherto, based on the plan of a discretionary liberty to be vested in the church courts. That plan has uniformly been discussed as a kind of middle measure which miofht brinor towther parties who, so far from having come to an understand- 474 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. mg as to tliG principle to be practically allowed, were still irreconcilably at variance. Thus, our opponents insist that in every instance the rejection of the pre- sentee must proceed on a judgment of the church courts upon the reasons of the people, and the qualifi- "^soundSe cations of the presentee. They would give the Mu meant churcli courts all possible latitude in coming to that judgment, even to the extent of the most whimsical caprice ; and this is their liherum arhitrium, or discre- tionary power vested in the church. But this is not the kind of measure to which we have ever said we would submit ; we insist that the church courts must, at the very least, have liberty, in every instance, to reject exclusively on the ground of the dissent of the people. Under whatever general form that liberty may be expressed or implied, it must be unequivocally sanctioned. Now the attempt has always been to explain and set forth the latitude intended to be allowed to church courts, according to the plan of our opponents, in terms so wide and comprehensive, and with so plausible, though still so indirect a reference to the whole circumstance of the parish, and even to the number or proportion of objectors, that it may appear to include and embrace in it the liberty for Tiiepuz/ie whicli WO contcud. Of course, I do not mean that can be ex- without an ^^^^ attempt is made in bad faith ; I impute it to niis- oftadfiith. nnderstanding and to a well-meant, perhaps, but ill- judged design, to effect an agreement in words between those who are still diametrically opposed in reality. "'"■ The true meaning which lurked beneath the decep- • Narrative, &c., pp. 30—32. Sm GEORGE SINCLAIR'S CLAUSE. 475 tive surface of Sir Georo'e Sinclair's ambiauous chap.xiv formula having at length, as already mentioned, come fully and fairly into view, the committee took steps to put an end to any possible misunderstanding upon the subject between them and the government. On the 23d November, Dr. Gordon transmitted to Sir James "^^'^^^.f™™'* Graham an explanatory minute of the committee, "o'skj accompanied by a letter, in which it was expressly di tee s coni- niunications Graham on discovering Hie true iiii- stated, that this communication had been rendered i'l^u^e!^^"" necessary by a *' material misunderstanding " which now seemed to have existed in the minds of some of the parties engaged in the late negotiation. Again, on the 3d of January, 1842, Dr. Gordon wrote, and at great length, to Sir James Graham upon the same subject. The answer of Sir James sufficiently revealed both the reality and the extent of the misun- derstanding, by announcing explicitly, that in the sense in which the committee understood the sufraested modification of Lord Aberdeen's bill, the government would from the very first have considered it ** inad- missible:" and so the bubble burst. We do not byThegovem- •' raent repu- any means affirm that mischief was intended by this '^"'"'*'"= clause iu the committi sense of and the unhappy negotiation, into which, in spite of them- "0""= selves, the committee were drawn, it certamly was ^iioiemat- *' tcr comes not intended by the amiable and ingenuous baronet '°''"'^'^'^- with whom, apparently, the negotiation originated. But certainly the elaborate ambiguities of the phraseo- logy on which it turned, formed precisely such a maze as might bewilder some, and afford to others an oppor- tunity of stealing away from their former friends. It " might be thought," as Dr. Candlish, not without reason observed, " a master stroke of policy : the 476 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. c>iAP. XIV. introduction of a wedge for breaking up the army of ™use'ife-"° t^^6 church's defenders, and the friends of her non- occaslnof iiitrusiou cause." It did so, it is true, to only a very , small se- ce'sTion from limited extent, — but yet to such an extent as served the ranks of i i i i s"on"'"'"'" ^^ fasten more firmly the bandage over the eyes oi men who would seem to have been judicially blinded. A few rapid strides will now carry us on to the assembly of 1842. In the month of January, the Duke of Argyll, accompanied by Mr. Campbell, of Monzie, member of parliament for Argyllshire, held two interviews with the non-intrusion connnittee. The committee urged his Grace to reintroduce his bill, which he cordially consented to do, unless he should find, on reaching London, that the government really intended to undertake the settlement of the question on some satisfactory basis themselves. On niscussion in tho 15th of March, Sir Andrew Leith Hay brought on Commons in a, discussion in the house of commons, on the Scottish March 18i3, sh-TL^""^ church question, under a pro forma motion, to have ^"^' certain papers relative to a recent, and, as it was alleged, objectionable appointment by the crown, of a minister to the parish church of Elgin. In replying to Sir Andrew, Sir James Graham took occasion to state, that ''the government had come to the decision, deeply regretting the necessity which had compelled them to do so, that it was not necessary for them to attempt legislating on the question, but that it was incumbent on them to stand by the law of the land. Government as laid dowu bythc civil tribunals of the country." tr,i'th'.y_-o o M7r!t' exceeded, by nearly £8000, the income of the year SL's'.''' before. The fact, as Mr. Dunlop observed, ought surely, in circumstances so peculiar, to be regarded " as the index of the advance of zeal for God's cause in the hearts of the people, and of the progress of the gospel over the whole world." On the day following, Saturday, the 21st of May, the assembly was called on to notice and resist the first open attempt upon its freedom made since the times of persecution. Intimation having been made, that the commissioners from the presbytery of Strath- bogie had an important communication to make to the *art? oneTf' lio^sc, Major Ludovick Stewart, one of their number, sumeirfrom Tosc, aud addrossiug the moderator, said — " Mode- teryof' rator, I hold in my hand a document which has been Strallibojrie, . . finn'of ' s^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ within the last few days. It is an interdict from the court of session, prohibiting me from taking- been 'inier-" my seat in the assembly, as the elder from the presby- tery of Strathbogie. I am not one of those who treat lightly an interdict of a civil court, for I have long been accustomed to strict discipline. But I hold that there are circumstances in which an individual may be placed, when it would be criminal to obey the tlie House to the fact that lie lias taking his seat. THE ASSEMBLY OF 1S43. 491 interdict of any earthly court. I hold in my hand an chap.xiv. authority in this holy book (here the speaker held out in his other hand his pocket bible), which does not pro-- hibit me from standing forth in support of the principles of the church of Scotland, in which I have been brought up : and so long as I am permitted, I will serve God as faithfully as I have served my country, — and I am ready to serve my country again, whenever the time arrives and the circumstances may come when I may be called upon to do so." The Rev. Mr. Dewar having stated, that he and the other clerical com- '^comnm-''' missioner had also been served with copies of the as'mihir ■*■ comruunica' same interdict. Dr. Candlish proceeded to comment """i- on this novel and startling incident, unparalleled in their ecclesiastical history. He read the petition to the lord ordinary from the deposed ministers. It prayed his lordship " to interdict, prohibit, and dis- charge the said Rev. David Dewar, Harry Leith, and Major Ludovick Stewart, and all and each of them, and all and every person or persons, except the per- sons elected by the complainers, "' "" from appearing at the ensuing meeting of the general assembly, or of any committee of said assembly, and by themselves or their agents, presenting or transmit- ^t!,';,f!i'P''[u; ting to the said assembly, or committee thereof, any commission or representatives of the said presbyteiy of Strathbogie : and also, to interdict, prohibit, and discharge the said respondents """ ""■ """ from claiming any right to sit or vote, and from sitting, voting, or acting in the said assembly, as members thereof, under the foresaid pretended nomination and election, for the presbytery of Strathbogie in any 492 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT.. Chap. XIV. manlier of way : and also, to interdict, prohibit, and discharge the said respondents ""' '^ from molesting or opposing the complainers in reference to the election lawfully made by the said presbytery and the majority thereof, and the commissioners thereby chosen to represent the said presbytery, in the said ensuing general assembly, in any manner of way." This Tiie interdict extraordiuarv demand the Lord Ordinary Cunnino-ham liad been •' JO cravefby' had granted as craved, — and the interdict, therefore, ningha^"' uow brouglit under the notice of the house, went the full length of the prayer of the deposed ministers of Strathbogie. The assembly did not for a moment hesitate as to the course which, on this emergency, it ought to pursue. By a formal resolution it invited the interdicted presbyters to take their seats and to exercise their functions as members of the house, just as if the interdict had never been issued, — thus shar- ing with them all the responsibility and the hazard which a breach of the interdict might be found to Resolutions iuvolvc. Furtlior, it recorded in its minutes a solemn on the sX" protest against the ''attempt now for the first time made, on the part of any civil tribunal, to interfere with the constitution of the supreme court of this church," as wholly unconstitutional. Dr. Cook ad- mitted that this interdict was ''a strong case" of civil interference. " But," said he, " we might have lamented this interference, and entertained an opinion that, under all the circumstances, it was a stretch of power in the court to do so. But where is your remedy? Not here. You cannot sit pari passu with the court of session, and review its decisions. If it violate our privileges, we go to the legislature and tell THE ASSEMBLY OF 1842. 493 our wrongs, and complain and petition that they be so chap. xiv. guarded as that no violation of them can take place." Yes, complain and petition, — but in the meantime sub- mit and conform to the orders of the civil power. If you resist the interdicts of the civil tribunals, — *' where," ^J^in^entin""' said Dr. Cook, ''is this to stop?" But surely this theintcr- other inquiry was at least as pertinent, — if you com- ply with their interdicts, ''where is this to stop?" If the interdict forbids what Christ commands, is the church to obey man rather than God, — and then to go to the legislature to pray that she may be allowed to cease from the sin? "So far," observed Dr. Candlish, in reply, making a distinction which Dr. Cook, as usual, had altogether overlooked, " from s^ee^ch^°f having the slightest objection to the remedy to which |re*p,5'toV)" he pointed, against this unconstitutional interference with our ecclesiastical rights and privileges, secured to us by law, I will rejoice to go along with the Rev. doctor in seeking such a remedy: and I hope, there- fore, that he will go along with us when we propose to seek such a remedy. But the adoption of that parti- cular remedy, which consists in going to the supreme civil power to complain against this encroachment on our ecclesiastical privileges, and to protest against it as unconstitutional and illegal, — that is one question. But it is another question, — what is our duty when such encroachments are attempted and made ? and that is the only question before the assembly." Dr. Cook having moved a simple negative upon the resolution proposed by Dr. Candlish, the assembly divided, and the resolution was carried by 173 to 76, The movement at which Dr. Candlish hinted in his 494 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap^iv. answer to Dr. Cook, was destined to be the great clia- ^an •S.Mo racteristic event of this assembly. Even before this parliament. |^^^ outrago ho-d been perpetrated, it had become abundantly manifest that to go on in the face of such incessant assaults upon the rightful jurisdiction and liberties of the church, as were now made by the courts of law, was altogether impossible. The church was entitled to know from the legislature, whether it in- tended to sanction, by its sovereign authority, that supremacy in matters spiritual which the courts of law had now assumed, and were daily attempting, by means so harassing and intolerable, to enforce. The time had come when, instead of facing these encroach- ments in detail, and remaining under the fire of those civil processes which constituted the artillery of eras- tianism, the church should go at once to the state itself, — and submit the whole matter to the arbitrement of one authoritative and final decision. Up to the point at which she now stood, the church was in the attitude of maintaining that not she, but the civil tri- bunals, were acting, in respect of the matters now in dispute, in violation of the law of the land. If the ^tivcftbe""" state was prepared to sanction this plea, the church nuiTo'ffcr was entitled to ask and expect that effect should be to the Slate. . .,,,,. , . <• i given to it, by tlie immediate adoption or such a legislative remedy as would relieve her from the yoke of so grievous an oppression. If, on the other hand, the state was not prepared to follow that course, an alternative still remained. Let the announcement be distinctly made, that the right of interference now claimed and exercised by the courts of law has the sanction of the state, and that submission to that \ THE ASSEMBLY OF 1842. 495 interference is hencefortli to be the understood and cuap xiv. avowed condition on which alone the church can retain the temporal benefits and immunities of her estabUsh- ment, and then the two parties concerned in this con- tract— the church on the one hand, and the state on the other — will know what to do. If, after that announce- The only cour-^e that ment, the church resist the decrees of the civil tribu- p^n'^toUie nals, she is a rebel ao'ainst Crcsar; but if after it she the"iveurof 1 • 1 IT- 11 • /N1 • theSbite submit to these decrees, she is a rebel afjainst L/hrist, fs^°"''"'^- other, in defence of the doctrine aforesaid, and of the liberties and privileges, whether of office-bearers or people, which rest upon it ; and to unite in supplica- tion to Almighty God, that He would be pleased to turn the hearts of the rulers of this kingdom, to keep, unbroken, the faith pledged to this church in former days, by statutes and solemn treaty, and the obliga- tions come under to God Himself, to preserve and maintain the government and discipline of this church in accordance with His v»^ord, — or otherwise that 'He i^^ti^eMmt would give strength to this church, office-bearers, and '°'' people, to endure resignedly the loss of the temporal benefits of the establishment, and the personal suffer- ings and sacrifices to which they may be called, and would also inspire them with zeal and energy to pro- mote the advancement of His Son's kingdom, in whatever condition it may be His will to place them; and that, in His own good time. He would restore to them these benefits, the fruits of the struggles and 506 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. sufFerliigs of tlieu' fathers in times past in tlie same cause, and tliereafter give them grace to employ them, more effectually than hitherto they have done, for the manifestation of His glory." Such were the solemn terms in which the harassed and injured church was now preparing to make her final aj^peal to the supreme power of the state. No ThetrumpLt ouc wlll Say, who reads these closing paragraphs, fain'soumi that tlic truuipct gave an uncertain sound. If those concerned did not ** prepare themselves for the bat- tle," it was not the fault of the general assembly. Never, perhaps, did the manifesto of any public body em23loy less ambiguous words, or indicate more explicitly the course they designed to pursue. The overture in which it was embodied, had been printed some time before. Full leisure had been given to the members of the house to study it, and to consider well before the discussion of it came on, whether they could conscientiously subscribe to its statements, and were prepared to bind themselves, before God and men, by the engagements which it contained. When laid upon the table of the assembly, it bore the signatures of no fewer than a hundred and sixty-one members of the house. Calmer?'- "I ^m glad," Said Dr. Chalmers, who took the iLTdouL. lead in this momentous debate, "that the putting forth of rights, of a claim of rights should be moved for in the general assembly. I liked the proposal from the time I first heard it; and more than ever are we now shut up to the necessity of such a measure. The court of session persists in, nay, is fast multiplying its encroachments. But the crowning necessity for a full and formal repre- THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 507 sentation of our case before the country at large, is — ciukxiv. that we have been refused a hearing by parliament. '^^'fiSiie The disposition, in high places, is to leave the church beeTtreitea .... . bv meu in altogether ni the hands ot the court ot session, to po"". proceed against her ad libitam, or to any extent that might seem unto them good; and this is called leaving the law to take its course. They would abandon one court to the entire mercy and discretion of another; and this they term being satisfied with the law as it stands. The question whether each court might not have its own proper and certain limits prescribed by the consti- tution, or whether these limits might not possibly, yea, have not actually been transgressed, — this is a question which they have not looked at, and will not listen to. Thus given up, thus abandoned, it seems our last expedient to make the solemn appeal which we now meditate, to the intelligence, and the con- science, and the good faith of all men.'* The speaker proceeded to comment on the way in which distin- guished members of the government had, in their places in parliament, dealt with this great question. When Mr. Campbell of Monzie's motion for a committee of inquiry was before the house of commons, the church was spoken of as divided on this great question of her proper and rightful jurisdiction, — and it was said if they granted the committee, they would have to examine men of all parties in the assembly. On the other hand, they took no account of the ^.^I'S!?' divisions that existed on the other side of the question, question! in the court of session. They assumed that the voice of "f'« to ti.e J Church and a majority, albeit of an overwhelming majority, was tZ"couruof not the voice of the church; but they took it, as if it 508 'i'lIE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap XIV. were a matter of course, that the voice of the barest possible majority of the judges was the voice of the "^onnSr courts of law. ^*Why," demanded Dr. Chahiiers, justice.'"' *'not call up my lord Fullerton, or my lord Jeffrey, or my lord Moncrieff, to give account of their respective opinions on the one hand, along with my lords Gillies or Cunnlnghame upon the other? But that is never done with any court that I know of. The sentence, and the legal effect of that sentence, passed by however small a majority, is the all in all that is proceeded on, — not the different views or meanings of the different members. Why, then, should the church be singled out for another sort of treatment? — the sentiments of her different members only had respect to, not the sentences of her courts, although sentences passed by a far larger (proportional) majority than in the court of session, — nay, far larger than can be alleged by the premier himself, backed and supported as he is in the house of commons, — whose decision, at the same time, is omnipotent, within its own sphere, although he had but the majority of one upon his side. What means this contrary method of dealing with the church? — as if in her case, and in hers only, every principle of constitutional law might be given to the winds; and, at the arbitrary choice either of courts or parliaments, her place in the statute book may, brevi manu, be cancelled and blotted out at any time, and she be thus treated and disregarded as a thing of no standing whatever, in the constitution of these realms." Having made some observations on the statutory recognition, by acts and solemn national treaties, of the church's spiritual freedom generally, and of her THE CLAIM or RIGHTS. 509 exclusive jurisdiction in tliose very matters that were chap. xiv. now in dispute. Dr. Chalmers proceeded to animad- '^t'iou'thTtiie vert on the equally unjust and ungenerous assumption muTbe that muiht and riqlit must, in this case, be the same, cause might •y f.' ' ' makes ris-lit. The church had no coactive power, and therefore she must be in the wrong. The court of session has many stern compulsitors, by means of which to enforce its decrees against the church, — and therefore it must be in the right. '' Let me tell them that reason thus," — he said, breaking forth into one of those bursts of whirl- wind-like vehemence in which the intellectual force and moral earnestness of his nature so often displayed themselves, — " let me tell them, that never were any doings transacted on a public arena, seen and read of all men, — never were any more fitted to loosen the cement which binds together our social fabric, — never any more directly fitted to loosen and unsettle the foundations of all social order, than the doings of these few past years against the church of Scotland. For, iheappiica- ^ , , ' tinnoftlmt first, sir, as has been well said by an eminent conser- cwr*^" courts, strikes at the root of vative lawyer, the member of a court should no more be reckoned with for his vote, than the member of a justice.' jui-y; and that to punish a court for its sentence, is just as glaring a violation of principle, and strikes as much at the root of all justice in society, as to punish a jury for their verdict. The legislature may remodel, or even put down any of those civil courts which itself hath constituted; or may withdraw the recognition itself hath given to those ecclesiastical courts which it may have been pleased to legalize, — and so, if the church of Scotland have, by the perversity of her courts, become a nuisance in the land, may disestab- 510 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. \[q}i ^er: aiicl we only want tliat deed of the supreme magistrate which is to strike her out from the place which she now occupies in the national system. But while we stand on our present footing, for any inferior judges or magistrates to lift the hand of violence against us, and that for the part we conscientiously take in the business of her presbyteries and general assembly, — this, sir, is greatly worse than for a man in the walks of ordinary life, to lift up the hand of violence against his fellow. It is a blow struck, not at a mere individual, but at one in the sacred charac- ter of a functionary, — an outrage done on the higher platform, and against the principles, of constitutional ^trinefhat ^^^^' — ^^^® ^^^ ^^ tyrauuy having in it the character of rSioT' rebellion, — and so the most directly fitted of ought I constituttd know, to let down, as from hioher to lower places, the authority. ' . . * . ° . f > infectious spirit of rebellion and crime on the ground floor, as it were, of general society. For, again, sir, what have these advocates and precious friends of order been doing for some years past? They have, if not by direct instigation, at least by then' countenance and favour, been encouraging the insubordination both of our lower judicatories and of many individual clergy- men,— so stirring up all the confusion and anarchy they possibly can within the church of Scotland. It has begun here: I ask, will it end here? Will this truly perilous example spread no farther? And now dangers ^i^^t tlic practicc of trampling down majorities has been so conspicuously set, is there no danger of imi- tators springing up in other quarters, and bidding defiance to the majorities of other courts, even should it be the high court of parliament? But lastly, we The that ensue THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 5|2. may be told over again of a failure in our analogy, chap.xiv. because the civil courts have, while the ecclesiastical ^°J",f./re.'"' have not, the means of enforcement, — the very reason, Xus" as was beautifully said by my Lord FuUerton, why defenceless the constitutional rights of the church, as being the defenceless party, should be all the more sacredly respected. But, sir, if these be the maxims which are henceforth to prevail — if the weak, because weak, are thus to be overborne, — and every voice of remon- strance from them to be unheard, — if the aphorism of ' might is right' is now to be acted on by men in authority, — there are men not in authority who may learn from their example to act upon it too, — and in whose doings, when only let slip over this our fair and well-ordered territory, that saying of holy writ might find its fearful verilication — ^If such things be done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?' God may please, sir, in the exercise of a wise and holy discipline, thus to afflict our church, and bring it to the trial of her faithfulness, — insomuch, that for not giving the things of God unto Caesar, for her adher- ence to this sacred principle, she may be made to suffer that worst of all violence — the violence of ini- quity under the forms of law: and this, too, because the force of law is on the side of her adversaries. But, sir, if with this argument of force, now in the The lawless . . , may come to mouths ot senators and magistrates, judgment is to |es™n"t,^ug begin at the house of God, — when this very argument in'ti.eVime" passes into the mouths of the lawless and disobedient, of the ungodly and sinners, what, I ask, shall the end be? or where shall tyrants and persecutors appear after that their own wicked and worthless arfiumcnt. Dr. Gordon seconds the motion. His speech. 512 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. taken up by men who have the strength of milhons upon their side, is heard in a voice of thunder, or pours itself forth in some wide-spread war of turbu- lence and disorder, over the face of our common- wealth?" ''I second the motion for the adoption of this over- ture," said Dr. Gordon, rising when Dr. Chalmers sat down, ''with a hope which I am not willing to relin- quish, that when our claim of right is brought before an enlightened legislature, — before high-minded and honourable men, — they will not refuse, at least, a patient perusal of that claim; and I have the convic- tion, which I am as little willing to relinquish, that if they do give to it a patient perusal, they will see the justice, and therefore the policy of acceding to it. But, sir, if unhappily it should be otherwise, — if they have resolved on refusing to grant what we think reasonable on our part to ask, I feel for one, that we are bound, as honest men and as christian ministers, with all calmness and with all respect, but with all firmness and determination, to tell them, that we can- not carry on the affairs of Christ's house under the coercion of the civil courts; and, however deeply we may deplore the loss of those advantages which we derive from our connection with the state, if ultimately the legislature determine that they will not listen to our claim, then those advantages we must relinquish, be- cause we could not hold them with a good conscience." The supporters of the overture were curious to know in what way it would be met by its opponents. Would they dispute the facts, — or would they justify the facts, — on which the overture proceeded ? They THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 5^3 took a more convenient course, — they treated the chap.xtv. wounded and bleeding church, as the priest of the ^neVts^evade parable treated the man who had fallen among thieves, — they passed by on the other side. Their amend- ment never looked at the overture, or at the great question which it so solemnly raised. It took the form of a series of resolutions. The first set forth, that ''as the act on calls, commonly denominated the veto-act, infringes on civil and patrimonial rights,'* it should be declared ''null and void." The second announced, that while the members of this church were at one in believing that Christ is the Head of the church, — that its government has been placed by The: resolu- amendment. Tlicii' singu- lar cliarac- ter. Him in the hands of church officers, distinct from the posed as civil power, and that the "intrusion of unqualified or unsuitable ministers is decidedly at variance with the principles of the church," yet that in the appli- cation of these doctrines there was room for "consci- entious diversity of opinion," and that such diversity was no reason "for those who may so diff"er, separating from each other." A very good-natured certainly, but a somewhat latitudinarian conclusion. The third went on to say, that "such being the case," the existinof ao-itation ouo-ht to cease, and that "ministers should devote themselves chiefly to the regular and assiduous discharge of their pastoral and parochial duties." "Is Saul also among the prophets?" it might well have been said, in listening to this pious advice. But last of all, by way of crowning the climax of irrelevancy and extravagance, which the series combined to form, the fourth resolution summed up the whole matter with this grave assurance, that . II. 2 K 514 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. " tliei'e exists at present great security against the settle- ment of unqualified and unjustifiable ministers, whilst ample opportunities are afforded to the office-bearers of the church, as members of the different ecclesiastical judicatories, to propose, in a legal and constitutional manner, any measures which may appear to them calculated to increase that security." In short. According to accordiug to these singular resolutions, — the conflict these resolu- . • i i i • p tions.the now ffoinof on was a pure mistake, — the adversaries oi whole con- O O L ' churews the church, against whose encroachments and usur- mbtake."' patlous shc had been contending for years, were as much the creatures of imagination as the giants of Don Quixote, — the court of session was as harmless as the windmill, whose flappers never moved an inch beyond their legitimate round, and which unhorsed the unhappy knight of la Mancha in spite of them- selves, and only because he wilfully rode up against them, — and as for the Strathbogie ministers, they were as innocent as the poor sheep which fled from the thunders of Rosinante's tread ! But was it really so ? Was it a delusion that a presbytery had been dragged to the bar of a civil tribunal, and its members threatened with a jail for laying their hands on a licentiate of the church and ordaining him to the office ^dLm?''''' ^f ^^^ ^^^1 ministry ? Was it the fancy of a fevered brain that the court of session had prohibited the preaching of the gospel, even in the open fields ? Were the shameful scenes of Marnoch and Cul- salmond nothing but the nightmare phantoms of a dream? Were Lords Brougham and Oottenham mere scarecrows, dressed up in full-bottomed wigs, to frighten childish non-intrusionists ? Had many of THE CLAIM OF EIGHTS. 5^5 the first intellects of the ao;e been struo^o-linGf, as in ii chap.xiv. matter of life and death, to break imaginary fetters, and to gain liberties which they already enjoyed? It a great act of is hard to believe all these thinsfs, — but no doubt the v-^^^f^^^y ~ ' the franier framer and su23porters of those four famous resolutions pmtcreof must have found out a way to compass this great act ti'Jiis. ""'""* of faith. The adoption of the resolution was moved by Dr. Cook. After going over the old ground of the veto- law, and expatiating with considerable warmth on the evils of agitation and strife, he came at length to the important question of the doctrine of Christ's Head- ship, touched in his second resolution. ''What Jcr. coou-s ^ speech. maintain then is," he observed, ''that when the gene- ral doctrine that Christ is the Head of the church is conscientiously held, — there is nothing wrong in be- lieving that there may be ground for diversity of sentiment as to what is comprehended under that Headship in all cases, or particularly where there are not express and unambiguous declarations of scripture upon the matter : and consequently that tlie members of a church may remain in the same communion, although they are not agreed under the view of the matter which I have taken as to the extent of the Headship, or as to what must be embodied in it. Holding the Head as we all do, it is quite natural and right that the members of a church should, by consti- tutional means, or by the influence of representation and argument, endeavour that their own notions upon this subject may be embraced by the whole church : but this is merely what takes place as to all points as to which men differ, — and differ without once imagin- 2 k2 51(3 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. inor tliat tliG difference dissolves the social or relip^ious ties by which they are related. Much as we have of late heard of spiritual independence, and much as has been spoken and written about it, it is still of moment to define it, or to endeavour to form clear notions of ^nouon'tf what Is rcally included under it." This appears very pMin'"" much the same thing as to say, that if the office-bearers creed." of a cliurch will only consent to sign its creed, they may disagree as much as they like, about the true meaning of the articles which that creed contains. If this licence be good, as regards one great cardinal doctrine, it must be equally so as regards every other. Let Dr. Cook's words be applied, for example, to the doctrine of Christ's mediation, — to the eighth instead of the thirtieth chapter of the confession of faith, — and "ilarian'"""" "how wiU thcy read ? " What I maintain then is, that MeediV-*" when the general doctrine that Christ is the mediator plied and . • • i i i illustrated. IS conscientiously held, — there is nothing wrong in believing that there may be ground for diversity as to what is comprehended under that mediatorship in all cases, or particularly where there are not express and unambiguous declarations of scripture upon the matter." The church of Rome finds it quite possible to hold '' the general doctrine," that Christ is the mediator, and yet so to differ as " to what is compre- hended under it," as practically to make the doctrine void altogether. Would Dr. Cook have ventured to say, that because pa^^ists and protestants hold, in common, this general doctrine of Christ's mediator- ship, their diversities of opinion as to what it does, or does not include, should not separate them from one another ? He might indeed have said, and truly, that THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. ^l>j the protestant confession defines the doctrine of the chap.xiv. mediatorship in a way that points out the sense in which every honest protestant must be understood to hokl it — a sense not to be reconciled with the creed, on the same point, of the church of Rome. But is it not so, that the confession of faith defines quite as exphcitly the doctrine of the Headship of Christ, and declares, as clearly, what is included under it ? Does it not declare, that the Headship is a doctrine which no room for ■*■ _ such laxity includes under it the separate standing of the church con^^s,?on as a kingdom not of this world, — its distinct govern- °"'''''"'- ment in the hands of church officers — the exercise, by these officers, of the entire j^ower of discipline, and in particular their authority to admit to, and exclude from the privileges of the church, — to lay on, and to take off spiritual censures, — and generally to administer the whole ** power of the keys." And does not the confession make the line which circumscribes what is embraced in this doctrine of the Headship, still more marked and prominent, — by declaring expressly, that *'the administration of the word and sacraments," and '* the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven," are matters which " the civil magistrate may not assume to himself." No wonder that in referring to this part of Dr. Cook's speech, Mr. Dunlop should Mr. nuniop's A I ' I remark on have remarked, that '' he was unable to ascertain in speech"''' what sense Dr. Cook held the doctrine of the Head- ship of our Lord, excepting that it was a sense which might be compatible with various opposing opinions on the part of others." ''Those who preceded me in this debate," said Mr. Dunlop, after a few opening sentences, among which. the claim of 5 j g THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. tliG 0116 already quoted occurs, " dealt with the sub- *ex oimds^ ject on high grounds of principle. I have a humbler task in addressing myself to acts of parliament. Still these acts are not ordinary statutes. They touch matters of high and holy interest. They are the homage which the kings of the earth have paid to the King of kings, — the deeds of nations acknowledging the truths of the living God, — bulwarks raised by men in the exercise of the authority which God has given to princes, to fortify and protect the authority which He has committed to His church." The points embraced in the course of the learned and perspicuous legal argument which he thereupon addressed to the house, were these: — The recognition, by the statute law of Scotland, of the exclusive jurisdiction of the church in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical. The Summary of absolutc exclusiou of tlic jui'isdictioii of the secular courts, or of the interference of any secular power. The statutory injunctions on the civil courts and offi- cers of justice, to aid, in their own province, in carrying into execution the sentences of the church courts. The securities for the exclusive jurisdiction of the church contained in the act of security, the treaty of union, and the oath of the sovereign on accession to the throne. And lastly, the infringements on these rights, by the act of Queen Anne, and the more recent invasions of the court of session. In a word, there was condensed into this able speech, the substance of that whole legal and historical argument, which it has been one of the objects of this work to develope and apply. To go over it here, were only to repeat what must now be tolerably i'amiliar to the reader's mind. his state ment, THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 5I9 When speaking of the late proceedings of the courts chap.xiv. of hiw, Mr. Dunlop took occasion to refer to the ^''■- """'°p ' 1 reminds Dr. chapel-act, on which certain of these proceedings panhfimd were based, and to remind Dr. Cook that he had passmg'the parlianicu- himself supported a measure essentially the same, es'^,S'or''' when in 1833 he had moved for the admission into church courts of the ministers of the parliamentary churches. Hereupon '* Dr. Cook observed, that though, as convener, he had signed the report recom- mending the act which was thus passed, he had stated that he did not agree with the report, so far as regarded the allowing the ministers of these churches to sit in church courts." ** My impression," answered Mr. Dunlop, " has been different; I had always supposed that Mr. Pirie of Dyce, who alone entered a formal dissent, was the only individual who differed from the report. Certainly Mr. Pirie has always plumed him- self as being the only man who had dissented against that vote ; but we now find that the rev. doctor is entitled to strip him of part of the honours which for some years he has regarded as peculiarly his own." Dr. Cook having repeated his statement, Mr. Dunlop went on to say, ** The committee which made that Mr -Duniop J ' replies to report was composed, besides Dr. Cook, of Dr. Inglis, el^pianauon: Messrs. Forbes, Grant, and many other oeutlemenon hl's state-'' the other side of the house, and also of several judges of the court of session, and distinguished members of the legal profession, such as the late Lord President, Hope, the present Lord President, Boyle, the present Lord Justice Clerk, Hope. I forget them all ; but there was a host of judges and lawyers, and not one of them in the committee, or out of the committee. 520 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. evei' liiiited tliat we were infringing the constitution of the church or the laws of the land." Towards the close of his speech, Mr. Dunlop addressed himself to the two motions before the assembly. In reference to that of Dr. Cook, he shewed that the remedy which it proposed did not, tmotiu" ^1^^ could not meet the case. " Supposing, for a of ur. Cook. j^-^Qj-^-^g^^^^ ^\^^i tl^e veto-act were repealed, will this settle all the questions now in dependence ? It will not settle the power of the court of session to suspend the censures of the church, to prohibit the preaching of the word, and other ecclesiastical functions. It will not settle the question as to quoad sacra ministers ; nor the many cases which, since the first collision, forced on us by other parties, they have gone on raising against us, affording opportunity to the court of session to give decisions and lay down principles Thatmotiou whlch uiust bc rcmovcd out of the way, if this church ^ttietiie is to administer her affairs according to the laws of Church's difficulties. Chi-ist's house ; so that the motion of the rev. doctor will not answer the purpose intended by him, and as a basis for restoring peace to the church, it is difficult to understand how the rev. doctor should ever have represented it as such." Having contrasted with that inept proposal the admirable fitness of the motion of Dr. Chalmers, Mr. Dunlop concluded thus: — '* I was, perhaps, for a time too much inclined to seek for peace by an abandonment of our position as an establishment, and at once to secure the freedom of carrying on the ordinary labours of a church without molestation, by relinquishing the temporal advantages which were made an excuse, however unjustly, for THE CLAIM OF IIIGHTS. 521 interfering with us. I have, of late, however, been chap. xiv. learning another, and I trust a better lesson, — the duty ^m"'^i)u°" °^ of maintaining, as long as we can maintain, the van- ^"p ' 'p'''''''- tage ground we now possess for exhibiting and estab- lishing the true nature of the right connection between a christian church and a christian state. Even since this assembly met, additional motives to this course have been presented to us. Our forefathers secured, in this corner of Christendom, the recognition, by the state, of the spiritual independence of the church, showing how the church — acknowledging the implicit obedience due to the temporal power in matters tem- poral— may yet, while supported and aided by the state, conduct her own government and advance the cause of religion in spiritual freedom and indepen- dence, with mutual harmony and peace. They thus importance obtained for the church of Scotland a position among ^'St^,^" the governments of the nations, which she has ever engaged!' since retained. Other free churches which were refused an entrance, unless at the sacrifice of their liberties as churches of Christ, seemingly hopeless of attaining it, had begun to oppose all connection whatever between the kino'doms of the earth and the kinordom of the King of kings of the earth. Almost abandoned by all who, like ourselves, maintained the independence of the church, the powers of the world deemed us an easy prey and strove to drive us from our stronghold. From the very walls erected for our security they have assailed us, and the guards set to protect us have used the weapons entrusted to them for our defence to conquer and enslave us ; but the din of the contest has recalled the multitudes who had almost forgotten 522 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chap^iv. our existence, to a sense of the importance of the post H^ouln which we occupy. The symj^athies of christians in Churches. QyQy.j pg^j,^ q£ ^-^q world are turning toward us ; in this assembly, from England, from Ireland, from America, from Switzerland, from Prussia, we have encourage- ment by letter, or by the personal presence of ministers of the gospel, all deeply sympathizing with us in our struoforle for the rio-hts of the church of God in con- nection with the kins^doms of the earth : defendincr the citadel which, as a protestant establishment, we possess, we afford a rallying point to the christian world, and through it the churches of Christ may yet establish themselves in the fortress of the world's power, and obtain universally a national recognition of the free and riohtful dominion of our ^reat Head and King." After several other speakers had addressed the assembly, the Rev. Mr. Robertson, of Ellon, rose. In the course of his speech, he made the important Rev. Mr. admissiou, " in reference to the (general interdict in the Roljerlsoii ' ° _ ^ admits'timt Stratlibogic case," that he held that interdict to have botil'Ster- been '' an incompetent one, incompetent on the part diet was in- f> i • •i • i • i i i competent. Qi thc civii powcr, inasmucli as it condescended on certain specialities which did not, perhaps, fall within the province of the civil power to take cognizance of." With strange inconsistency, however, Mr. Robertson maintained that though it was incompetent for the civil court to grant such an interdict, *'yet, that in applying for that interdict, the majority of the presby- tery of Strathbogie did nothing but what was right." The interdict was granted in the very terms of their prayer, — and if it was wrong in the secular tribunal. THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 523 by granting It, to make an invasion upon the spiritual chap. xiv. province of the church, — how much more wrong for "j'tcTy on ministers of the church to solicit that invasion, and ""' ^'^''J'^'^'- thus ultroneously to Lecome the direct agents in breaking down that ecclesiastical authority which they had sworn at all hazards to uphold. Nearly three hours after midnight, when the early dawn of a summer's day was already dimming the lights in St. Andrew's church, where the assembly was convened, the debate was closed, and the overture was adopted by a majority of 131, — the numbers being, c'j'mof for the motion of Dr. Chalmers 241, and for that of inJ.~^^ Dr. Cook 110. The CLAIM, DECLARATION, and PROTEST, which the overture embodied, had now therefore become the claim, declaration, and protest of the church of Scot- land, By that solemn instrument the church took all men to witness, that there was now but one or other of two alternatives before her, — either to get her claim acknowledged and allowed by the legisla- ture, or to abandon her civil establishment. Durinl'st"^'°" Grace at once agreed to do so, and also undertook t'ot'h"'"^ , Throne. to convey to the same high quarter the petition of the assembly for the abolition of patronage. In con- senting to execute this task, his Grace spoke in the Tlie Queen': Commis- sioneragrci to convey 526 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XIV. followlnof temis I — ** I shall have the honour of trans- o His Grace's mittiiia the adclrcss to her majesty, and likewise the speech in O j j ' toundertale petition : but I desire it to be distinctly understood, that in so doing I express no approbation." On the 17th of June, the Marquis of Bute fulfilled his promise by placing the claim of right and the petition against patronage in the hands of Sir James Graham, secretary of state for the home department, " in order to be submitted to the queen." In a letter addressed to his lordship on the 20th of the same month, and which was immediately afterwards communicated to the moderator of the general assembly, Sir James made the following reply : — *' If the presentation of these Litter of Sir documcnts to the queen implied, in the least detthem alto' to take care of the souls, and to exercise spiritual jurisdiction and discipline over the persons inhabiting the district comprehended within the following boundaries," l' Graliam, in Sir James Graham s letter, and specified instances ^||f^i°'"„*]^5 in which that misapprehension appeared. One of sTon'of'the these instances was the groundless assumption that views!" 570 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT, Chap. XV. tlie abolitioii of patronage was as much a sine qua ^KSp°^ f^on with the church, as the protection of her spiritual mtuSn' jurisdiction from the encroachments of the courts of law. Another was the offensive and far more injurious mistake, of representing the church's claim, in regard to jurisdiction, as a claim to be the sole judge of what is civil and what is spiritual. The third resolution noticed the remarkable fact, that the long array of statutes on which the church rested her claim of spiritual jurisdiction, seemed to have escaped the notice of her majesty's government. The fourth combatted the statement — that the non-repeal of the veto-law was the sole occasion of the difficulties of the church, and showed how willing the church had been from the first to alter or rescind that particular law, the instant a substitute could be found compatible with her non-intrusion principle. The fifth and last resolution, j)roclaimed the adherence of the commission to the claim of rights, and the certainty of a disruption of the church, if that claim should be denied, — and The commis- concluded thus: ''But at the same tune deeming that toThe'cidm it is from the legislature, — the supreme power in the on'^a^Mi'"' state, — that a decision, express or tacit, should be parliament, had by the church, the commission resolve to present petitions to both houses of parliament, laying before them the claim of rights adopted by the late general assembly, and praying that they may be pleased to adopt measures for granting the redress and protection there sought, and appoint a committee to prepare j^etitions to both houses of parliament. " In supporting these resolutions, and this final appeal to parliament, Dr. Chalmers called on the friends of SIR JAMES GRAHAM'S LETTER. 5'J^l this great cause to prepare for the worst. ''I hope/* chap. xv. he said, ** that the practical poUcy of the Christian ^p^,^'j|;,°f^^'"- people of Scotland will be as vigorous and as strenuous to'preparf now, as if the certanity were staring them m the tace, worst. that the Scottish establishment is to come down. I hope that the meeting of elders to-morrow will be as energetic and determined, in taking measures to provide the means of sustentation for the original presbyterian church of Scotland, as if the final sentence had gone forth afjainst us. It is a most cruel and mischievous policy to defer the work of preparation, at so well nigh hopeless a time as the present; and it is absurd to say that our preparing for the worst will at all precipitate or hasten on the crisis. - " """ If anything will avert the crisis, it will assuredly be the spectacle of a united Christian nation resolving, that when their ministers are driven, for conscience sake, out of the establishment, they shall be maintained and continued in their usefulness, — and their evangelical services be still preserved to the land, — determined never to let down their efforts till they have made Scotland an experimental garden, covered with churches and with schools." In answer to the reference for advice from the presbytery of Edinburgh, as to what ought to be done, meanwhile, in the administration of the church's affairs, by the inferior judicatories of the church, the commission recom- instructions mended, tliat in ail matters of ordinary routine they cmr/tsasto should proceed as usual, but that, — ''in all disputed mtLttL and litigated cases, the decisions in which would carry civil consequences," — proceedings should be stayed, and counsel asked from the ensuing general assembly. 572 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. It was Oil the eveiiiiig of the 7th of March, that the petition, prepared by authority of the commission, was brought under the consideration of the house of com- mons. The petition itself had been presented by Mr. Fox Maule on the 10th of February, — and now, agreeably to a notice to this effect previously given, Mr. Mauie's that ofentlemau proceeded to found upon it a motion motion lu O i J- ofc?m"'^ of inquiry into those grievances of which the petitioners «r7th" complained. Grave as the question was — and momen- tous as were the interests which it involved — it did not succeed in collecting so many as half the members of the lower house of parliament to hear it debated. A railway bill has often proved a more potent spell with which to conjure members from the clubs and dinner parties of the metropolis, than a case on which there hung the integrity and stability of a great national religious institution, and the worldly fortunes of hundreds of ministers of Christ. Mr. Maule ably and admirably performed the responsible duty which had been expressly laid upon him by appointment of the commission of assembly. In a speech which occupied two hours in the delivery, he laid the whole subject calmly and clearly before the house of com- mons. Approaching, in the course of his statement, the letter of Sir James Graham in reply to the '^spec'r''' church's claim — ** The right honourable baronet,'' he said, " had stated in his letter that the question of jurisdiction was a question of law — * Whether a particular matter in dispute is so entirely spiritual as to fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the church courts, or whether it involves so much of civil right as to bring it to a certain extent within the jurisdic- REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 5-^3 tion of the civil courts, may often be a difficult ques- chap. xv. tion/ To that extent he (Mr. Maule) agreed with the right honourable baronet. But when he added, * it is a question of law, and questions of law are decided in courts of law, — and questions of jurisdic- tion are also decided there,' — he (Mr. Maule) must take leave to differ on that point. In the first place, he maintained for the ecclesiastical court an equal right with the court of session, to decide for itself, and within itself, what were the limits between civil and ecclesiastical functions in cases brought before it. He acknowledged the same powers for the court of session, but he acknowledged no more. The highest authority he had been able to find on the subject of the jurisdiction of the court of session, went with him (Sir James Graham) to that extent, and no further. He would read a short passage from the * Institutes' of Lord Stair: *It is implied in the office of the lords Lordstair-? of session, that they should interpret all acts of par- jurildieuou liament, without which they must be inca23able to determine all civil causes: which interpretations, how- ever, have no other effect but in relation to the said causes, without prejudice to other judicatories to in- terpret the same as they are convinced.' It seemed to him (Mr. Maule) that the court of session had mis- taken its functions, and had assumed to itself privi- leges belonging only to the state. Without meaning any disrespect to the court of session, he contended that it was the duty of the house to take cognizance 'of such a departure from the principles on which it was established. His proposition would be — that the house should resolve itself into a committee for the of session. 574 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Cha l^- consideration of this great national question. He ^oujhuo was aware that it was difficult at times to reconcile mitteeof'"" couflictinoj jurisdictious ; but for one he would never enquiry, cesta^Tn ^-duiit, that wlicu two courts, equal by law, and by the Crown, thc coustitution independent of each other, come into conflict upon matters, however trifling, or however important, one should assume to itself the right to say that the other was wrong: as he read the consti- tution, it became parliament to interfere. If the house consented to the committee, he should suggest that, if the matter could not otherwise be decided, the house should address the crown, in order that a decla- ratory act might be passed, to the eff'ect of better defining the subject matter of the jurisdiction of the church, and confirming her jurisdiction within her own province." Such was the moderate and reasonable demand which, on behalf of the church of Scotland, Mr. Maule addressed to the British house of commons : a branch of that imperial legislature which was bound, by solemn treaty, to uphold the church of Scotland in all those rights and liberties which were secured to it by the ^gSui's revolution settlement. Sir James Graham, who fol- repetition lowcd immediately in reply, commended and engaged S*"^^'' to imitate the '' calm and dispassionate manner " in which Mr. Maule had discussed **this most important question." His speech was simply a reiteration and defence of his letter. " The real question," he said, *' was this, — when a secular dispute arose between jurisdictions which were co-ordinate and co-extensive, in terms approaching to the assertion of equality of supremacy, who should decide in the last resort ? " REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 575 A secular dispute. Sir James adroitly called it. But chap. xv. what if the dispute turn upon a matter spiritual ? and Sir James could but know that this was what the church alleged the matter, actually in dispute between her and the courts of law, to be. He was most careful, how- ever, to avoid facing that aspect of the question, — or applying to it the summary process of argument by which he condemned the claims of the church. The answer, however, which he gave to the church's peti- tion had at least the merit of being unambiguous and explicit. *' These pretensions of the church of Scot- Repudiates ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ _ the pieteii- land," said he, speaking of what was embodied in the chmd!.''''' assembly's claim of rights, '* as they now stood, of a co-ordinate jurisdiction, and the demand that the government should establish one law on the subject of parishes, and should allow the judge (church ?), by the interpretation of the statute judging of his own case, — to set up another law co-equal with, and para- mount to the law of the realm, did appear to him an expectation so unjust and unreasonable, that the sooner that house extinguished it the better, — because he was satisfied that any such expectation never could be realized in any country in which law, equity, or order, or common sense prevailed.'' This was in other words to say, that because the state had made a certain law regulating the title to the parish bene- fices,— the church had no longer a right to the inde- The import of pendent interpretation ot her own acts and standards, mentofMr ^ ^ ' James. in what related to the parish cures of souls ; — and therefore, that whatever the civil tribunals micfht determine as to the import and eff'ect of the secular statute, must not only control the disposal of the 576 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT, Chap. XV, living, but must also control the church in her dis- Mr. Ruther- posal of tlic holj ministry and of the pastoral office. ford's speech. ^^^^ Rutherford reminded the house, that those claims which Sir James Graham treated so lightly, were not to be held as groundless, merely because English gentlemen, accustomed to a totally different state of things in their own church, might think them ex- traordinary. It was not the wisdom either of the Home secretary or of the house, that was to decide the real question before them, for that question was a question, not of opinion, but of fact. Had the consti- tution of the country, or had it not, recognized as belonging to the church of Scotland the preroga- Hisexposi- tives she now claimed? Mr. Rutherford contended tion of the . . statutes that it had, and by a very able aro^ument, m the bearing on ' J J O ' dalm'""''" course of which he recapitulated and expounded the statutes on which the Scottish church establishment rested, he supported his affirmation, and challenged a discussion of the evidence he had thus adduced. In his learned and powerful speech, Mr. Rutherford commented with just severity on the style in which the church had been treated even on the bench of justice. *'As to the question," he observed, ''which party was the aggressor, he would not enter on it: but he would say, — and he said it though he knew he should meet the judges in a day or two, — that the lanofuasfe used on the bench had done much to exas- P^^^^^^g^j^perate the evil. The clergy had been spoken of by kngu^g"'"^ one of the judges as rebels and thimbleriggers, as scoteif'' playing the game of * odds I win, evens you lose.' He would not name the judge, but he said with extreme pain, that language of that kind had much REJECTION OF THE CLABI OF RIGHTS. 577 tended to embarrass the question." In the course of chap. xv. this memorable debate, Mr. Colquhoun, of Killermont, *houn°!,rkii. then member for Newcastle-under-line, opposed the H^s'aitercd views. motion of Mr. Maule, in a speech in which he repu- diated the chaims of the church, and eulogized Lord Aberdeen's bill, which he thought, with some trifling modification, might still meet the case. Like Sir George Sinclair, he had once been in the vanguard' of the church reformers, but like him also, he had " suffered a sea change." His anti-patronage and spiritual independence principles had been overturned on the unsteady sea of politics. " If the individual who represented Kilmarnock in 1841," said Mr. Pat- rick Maxwell Stewart, member for Renfrewshire, in ^J^^ll''' that tone of easy, good-humoured, and perfectly expos^ureuf gentlemanlike sarcasm, which he knew so well how iwun. and when to employ, " if he was the same that repre- sented Newcastle- under-line in 1843, there was cer- tainly a very great change in his sentiments at these two periods, — so great that it was difficult to believe in his identity. A Mr. Colquhoun, it appeared, had presented an address to the electors of Kilmarnock in June, 1841, in which he thus spoke: — ' I have felt it to be my duty to maintain the great institutions of my country, particularly those which secure our religious ri"-hts. One of these was the church of Scotland, which has recently been exposed to much danger. I, ^['^^'i^?]i.»-_ however, will never consent to barter her integrity, ef^torsof^ I will support her at this crisis of alarm, in all her just and reasonable claims. I will support her in the maintenance of her independent jurisdiction, — and those rights which are possessed by her people in the II. 2o gyg THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. ciiAr. XV. appointment of her ministers. These rights were not claimed by her without authority, but they are found recorded in her constitution, which no law should be suffered to alter.' So much for Mr. Colquhoun at Kilmarnock. Mr. Colquhoun, in his speech at Port- Glasgow, on the 24th June, 1841, was reported to iiis speech to bave said, — ' It had been recently whispered at Kil- the electors ' ./ i. Ghs°gow. marnock, that he would not stand by the established church. He would say that he was deeply attached to both of the established churches. With regard to the church of Scotland, he would oppose anything that would interfere with her independence in spiritual matters. He had already written a pamphlet pointing out the injurious consequences of passing such a mea- sure as that proposed by Lord Aberdeen, but of the Duke of Argyll's bill upon the subject he highly approved : and any measure of such a description as that, should have his warmest support.' " With all its faults, the house of commons knows how to respect consistency, — as the universal cheering which this exposure elicited, abundantly showed. The adjourn- Tlic dcbatc liaviujx been adjourned at the close of ed debate , , <-. , ° '^ - , ^ i, • Teakerf '"'' ^^^ ' ►^tcwart s spccch, was resumed on the following day, and prosecuted till past midnight. In the course of the second evening, the motion of Mr. Maule was cordially supported by Sir George Grey, Sir A. Leith Hay, and Mr. Campbell of Monzie, and opposed by Mr. Gumming Bruce, Lord John Russell, the Solici- tor-general, and Sir Robert Peel. It was, of course, a thing to have been expected, that the Solicitor- general should have responded to the challenge of Mr. Rutherford, and have met the church's claim to REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 579 an exclusive jurisdiction, in matters spiritual, by an chap. xv. examination of the statutes to wliicli Mr. Rutherford had, at gfreat leno;th, referred, and on which the church's claim was founded. He met it thus, and the fact forms one of the most significant and instructive incidents in this memorable debate. " What," said he, " was The solicitor General's the claim of the church of Scotland? '•' '• '-' It 'R'P{fJ,°fo?S;'- was this, the church said, ' We have an exclusive jurisdiction in matters spiritual,' — so far he went along with them ; but when they said, ' We are the exclusive judges of what are ecclesiastical matters ; we do not deny that there is a concurrent jurisdiction in the courts of law, we allow them the right of deter- mining what are civil matters ; but we claim exclusive authority in all ecclesiastical matters,' And was it supposed that courts so constituted could act harmoni- ously together ? He could not believe that such was the law of Scotland; he could not conceive how courts, with such a species of concurrent jurisdiction, could go on together, each being independent of the other, and both without appeal to any higher tribunal." It hardly became either so accomplished a lawyer as Sir William Follett, or so momentous an occasion as that on which he spoke, to dispose of a great question of constitutional law, affecting the most sacred rights of the national church of Scotland, by telling the house what he could, or could not believe. It was only, however, an additional example of what has been '^t'{f/|P}fci°4 noticed ao;ain and aj^'ain in this history, — that the wOTthyo"" ~ _ the occasion, powers assumed by the courts of law rested for their ^^^j^^ "'^ ''''"- chief support not on a calm, and patient, and candid examination of what the law is, but on a naked Sir R. Peel more de- cided, if possible, tliau even Sir J. Gialiani 5 go THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. assuiiiptioii of wliixt the law ought to he. Facts were made to bend to opinions, instead of opinions being made to bend to facts. Sir Robert Peel, the first minister of the crown, was, if possible, even more chwct/'"" emphatic than Sir James Graham in his repudiation of the church's claims. He vindicated, out and out, the conduct of the Strathbogie ministers, and con- demned the church as having, in its proceedings against them, *' laid claim to greater powers" than ever were claimed, even before the reformation, by the church of Rome itself. On the question of jurisdic- tion, the hinge of the whole matter, he gave his judg- ment in these words: ** But the question is, where and by whom the boundaries of civil and ecclesiastical questions are to be defined? It seems tome, that the power to determine in such a matter rests with the tribunal appointed by parliament, which is the '^wsar^°'^ house of lords." It seems to me; yes, this is the sum seems'tomer of tlic argumcut, on the strength of which the church of Scotland was to be refused even a committee of inquiry by the British house of commons. Lord John Russell spoke with deep feeling of the calamity which he saw impending. He stated that his original inclination had been to have moved, as an amendment on Mr. Maule's motion, that the house should address Lordj. Rus- the crown, prayinaj that some way might even yet be seU'sspeedi: ,.,°, , . ?, ii^ deprecates clcviscd " to avcrt tlic dcstructiou oi the church oi the disrup- *'""• Scotland." Not knowing, however, what difficulties there might be to hinder the government from inter- posing by any legislative movement, he did not feel himself warranted to adopt this course. He had already expressed his substantial concurrence in the REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF RIGHTS. 581 sentiments of Sir James Graham's letter on the (^hap. xv. church's claim to independent spiritual jurisdiction ; and it was certainly, therefore, very vain, however well intended, after this, to say, as he did at the close of his speech, " I trust that nothing that may fall \fj^"l^^ ^ from the first lord of the treasury (who had not then fSH^' spoken) will prevent this house, or a great part of this settlement.'^ house, from still entertaining a hope that the calami- ties we fear may be averted, and that a church which has been so eminent, which has performed its duties so well towards the people of Scotland, — duties of the due performance of which the talents and the morality of the people of Scotland are the best and most enduring proof, — will be preserved, as it has hereto- fore been preserved, to be still of use, and to be still an example in times to come." Sir Robert Peel, as has already appeared, was deaf to this call ; and with the views which, in common with Lord John Russell, he entertained on the question of jurisdiction, he did well to be deaf to it. Having first sanctioned the No settle- "-^ ... nieiit on the doctrine of the civil supremacy in matters spiritual, it ^^^I'f^l,^^ would have been vain, on that footing, to proceed to braccSd legislate for the ancient church of Scotland. He did cimrch. better to reserve his legislation till a somewhat later period, when an institution, taking to itself the name of the church of Scotland, was found willing to be dealt with on these degrading terms. The motion of Mr. Maule was rejected, upon a Mr Mauie' division, by a majority of 1.35: the numbers being 76 for, and 211 against it. It is not undeserving of notice, that of the 37 Scotch members who were pre- sent at the division, 25 voted with Mr. Manic. It raolion lost. 582 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. was iiot siiiiply, therefore, the voice of Scothind's ^i^ufesTtcii church, but the voice of her national representatives, vote'lrith that was that night overborne in the British parlia- ment. The fact is one which an impartial posterity- will mark and remember. In this decisive vote of the house of commons, taken in connection with the previous official commu- nication from the executive government, the church had now at length received a full and explicit answer to her claim of rights. That claim, adopted by the general assembly of 1842, by a majority of two to one, declared distinctly what those terms were, on which alone the church, consistently with her own constitu- tion and laws, and with her allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ, her only King and Head, could or would continue in union with the state. The state had now had now re- unequivocallv rejected these terms, and had intimated ceived her ■■■ ./ .< from"'i^^ost unmistakeably to the church that she could continue to enjoy the temporal immunities and emolu- ments of her civil establishment, only on the footing of submission to that right of control, even in matters spiritual, which the civil tribunals had assumed and exercised, and against which she had solemnly pro- tested, as a grievous wrong and an intolerable oppres- sion. There was, therefore, no room now for any middle course. To abandon her claim of rights, or to abandon her establishment, — these were the only alternatives that remained. In the convocation it had been unanimously aQ;reed, that if the leo^islature The only J t=> ' O thift'nwre- should cvcu be simply silent upon the question, after °"''""^- the claim of rights should have been formally brought before it, and if, at the same time, no steps should be THE CHURCH SETS HER HOUSE IN ORDER. 553 taken to redress the grievances of wliich that claim cuap.xv. of rights complained, — this of itself ought to be held as a practical rejection of the church's claims, amply sufficient to warrant and require her to renounce her establishment. It was the opinion, indeed, of a few of the members of the convocation, that in the event of the legislature being found to pursue that purely neo-ative course, some latitude must be allowed, in determining the precise point of time, at which that negative course should be held to have acquired, the meaning and force of a positive utterance upon the question at issue. It pleased God, however, in His '•^Jf^P^^jJ^^^ great mercy, that no darkness of this kind should be piaL"''"^" allowed to bewilder any one, — that there should be no twilight even, when the day for action came, — but that the light should arise upon the path of His ser- vants unclouded and at once, — and so as that the wayfaring man, though a fool, should not err therein. The response which the state gave was not veiled under a hesitatino- and dubious reserve. The de- o mands of the church had been met with a clear, em- phatic, and unqualified No. The two months which intervened between that memorable vote of the house of commons and the meeting of the general assembly, were spent in busy ^j^^'^f^^P^''^; preparation for the event which had now become '1'«'^"p^'°"- inevitable. A committee, embracing many of the ablest men in the church, sat from day to day, and laboured with untiring zeal and energy in making all things ready. A series of ''communications" were addressed to the members of the church, to keep them fully informed of the great movement that was now in 584 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. progi'ess, and of tlie reasons which had rendered it a matter of imperative necessity and duty. Means were adopted to organize every where, into a distinct and well compacted body, the adherents of those great Assnciationg principles which were now at stake. Associations forming i J- trrlc^T were formed in almost every parish for raising funds to build new places of worship, and to support the ministry when the deed of the church's disestablish- ment should have been completed. Over the whole business of this financial department Dr. Chalmers presided, and brought to bear upon it all his com- manding energy and consummate wisdom. ' At a much earlier period, indeed, he had striven hard, with his characteristic foresight and practical sagacity, to get all this done. In the convocation he expounded his views upon this subject at great length, and showed how, by a united effort, the offerings of the people might be made to replace the alienated endowments of the state. He was then listened to, as he after- wards complained, with an incredulous ear. When ^and^tii'esus! ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ go"^g ^o wrcck lic had painted up, and Fumi'"" brought alongside a life-boat, as one of the members of the convocation said at the time, that looked almost as good as the ship itself. But the speaker who gave this account of the embryo " Sustentation Fund," like the members of the convocation generally, were evidently inclined to look upon the scheme as little better than a devout imagination. They had made up their minds to forsake all, that they might follow Christ, and were not careful to inquire what their after condition, as to temporal support, might be. At that moment they were too much occupied with THE CHURCH SETS HER HOUSE IN ORDER. 535 the fact itself, involved in the resolution to which they chap.xv. had come, to be in a favourable condition for consi- ^n"";j'o"fhe derino- what was to follow. There was, in truth, a "ngageina . . , . . -, movement feelinr)' extensively prevalent amono- the ministers, and coiinectcd O J I O ' witli their one which generous minds will both understand and o"'"s"pi'°''*- appreciate, that it did not become them, at that move- ment, to be busying themselves, or taking the lead, in arranging for their future provision. It seemed to them every way more suitable, that whatever plans might be necessary for that purpose, should take their rise among the elders and private members of the church. The feeling was as natural as it was certainly strong and universal, — and hence the little success which Dr. Chalmers had in his efforts to enlist the convocation in support of his noble scheme. Not more, however, in the devising of that scheme than in thus settinw himself at once to the task of teachinjT it to his brethren, and of stirring them up to embrace and act upon it, did he exhibit the superiority both of his genius and of his faith. The event that was now approaching was not in his eye, — never was even for a single moment, — a question of personal, but a ques- tion of public interest. The thought of what the dis- The grand , ^ _ , ° object that establishinor of the church mio^ht cost hundreds of ^-^s before O o the mind of faithful ministers and their families, touching and mer^*'^^' solemn as it was, was lost in great measure to him, in the grander and diviner thought of what it might cost to God's cause and truth, and to the imperishable souls of men. Not to maintain a clergy, but to main- tain the gospel of Christ in purity and power through- out the parishes of Scotland, — not in great towns and populous districts alone, where the necessary temporal resources mioht be abundant, but even in the remotest 586 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. liio-hlaiid o^lens, ill the far Hebrides, and in the distant Orkney and Shetland isles, — this was the grand idea which his mighty mind had conceived, and with which Progress of his larQfe heart was filled. To him that idea owed its Dr. Chal- * Xme heing and birth, and to him also, under God, was mainly due the prodigious progress which had been made towards the realizing of it, before that day arrived when it was to become the chief earthly dependence of the disestablished church of Scotland. While these important economical arrangements were rapidly maturing and consolidating in the hands of Dr. Chalmers and his vigorous committee, other measures of hardly inferior moment were receiving not less careful consideration, and were gradually acquiring Consultations substaucc aud form. Chief amonof these was the par- as to tlie _ . . mannertf ^Icular aud cveutful dccd by which her separation from churcul"'^ the state was to be consummated by the church; and from the not mcrcly the deed itself, but the time and manner of doing it. The result of the many anxious consultations that were held upon this subject, was the adoj^tion of that PROTEST, destined to become so memorable, in which the church laid upon the supreme civil power, the entire and exclusive responsibility of dissolving a union, which had subsisted unbroken since the revolution. Confidential The protest was submitted to a meeting of those meeting of i <^ stLuk?s" ministers who approved of the convocation resolutions, in St. Luke's church, Edinburgh, on the evening of Monday, the 15th of May." This meeting was resumed on the evening of Tuesday, the 16th, — and again, on the evening of Wednesday, the 17th. It was nunier- * Including those who had given in their adhesion subsequently to tho convocation, the second series of resolutions had been signed by 480 ministers. THE CHURCH SETS HER HOUSE IN ORDER. '87 ously attended on all these occasions, and was pervaded chap. xv. by the most unbroken harmony. By the time its '^^,«^^pfj"^«''^ sittings were concluded, the protest had received the 4oo"mum. concurrence and signature of about 400 ministers. The particular copy of the protest that was to be used in the general assembly, was of course subscribed only by persons who had been chosen as commissioners to that supreme court of the church. Meanwhile, no effort had been spared to secure at least an apparent majority on the side of erastianism, in the general assembly. The hint given so promptly and significantly by Dr. Cook, in the commission on the 31st of January, had not been thrown away. It was acted on by no fewer than twelve different presby- The Lreaking teries, in all of which the moderate party made a tytenes and ' ^ ^ . the double causeless schism, by separating themselves gratuitously theTsLm- and unconstitutionally from the other members of higtoTr.'^' 1-1 T 1 T • Cook's hhit the court, — a movement, the evident and only design inthecom- missiuu. of which was, to gain a position in which they might issue a pretended commission to men of their own party, to sit in the approaching assembly. From each of these twelve presbyteries, a double return was accordingly made, — and two separate sets of com- missioners appeared for each of them, all claiming a title to be recognised as members of the supreme court of the church. This breaking up of the presbyteries was of course quite as uncalled for, and as unconsti- tutional, as was the attempt of Dr. Cook to break up the commission. Had Dr. Cook and his supporters, when they withdrew from the commission, adjourned to some other place and assumed to themselves the functions and prerogatives of the body which they 588 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. had left, — that is, of the commission of the general ^toaTcii^r- assembly of the cliurch of Scotland, — their acts would thesepro- havc bccn no whit more incompetent and illegal, than were those of the various parties of their zealous friends who made the corresponding movement, already described, in the several presbyteries to which they belonged. The method of making spurious returns was not, however, the only one by which the numbers, on the side of moderatism, were to be bolstered up in the assembly. All the arts of diplomatic cajolery, and all the sordid influences of terror and self-interest, were brought, both publicly and privately, to bear on Efforts made thosc who had hithcrto been identified with the non- to shake the Xndivfduai intrusion and spiritual independence cause. The "ionists™' men who had themselves already given way, were now the busy agents of the political and ecclesiastical managers who were pulling the strings of this most discreditable movement. They had their measure of success ; and as each new deserter from his former position and principles was reported at head-quarters, the delusive imagination grew more strong and confi- dent, among the men in power, that the threatened disruption would degenerate into an insignificant secession, and that the ten years' conflict would prove to have been little better than a clerical squabble, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. Tiie (i.y of ^t length the day that was to verify and vindicate Tlo.N."The" these sinister anticipations, or to shame and silence them for ever, arrived. Thursday, the 18th of May, 1843, dawned on the ancient metropolis of Scotland, — and as the morning wore on, the crowded state of lid Comniis- THE DISRUPTION. 589 the leading streets, and the look of excitement and cha expectation which appeared on almost every counte- nance, must have betrayed, even to the most ignorant and careless observer, the approach of some great event. The Marquis of Bute was again the queen's Hoiyrood ^ O 1 theComi commissioner to the assembly; and had, as usual, ii°,"e!' taken up his temporary residence in Hoiyrood. Seldom, if ever, had the reception rooms of the old palace been so thronged as they were on this memo- rable occasion. More loyal men than those who were to do the deed of that day, did not live within the far-reaching dominions of Queen Victoria. By their presence at the levee of her majesty's representative, they desired to show that the solemn act by which they were about to proclaim their allegiance to their heavenly King, interfered not with their profound attachment to the person, nor with their religious reverence for the authority, of their earthly sovereign. When the hour for opening the levee came, the spa- cious throne-room of Hoiyrood was filled with so dense The cro«d a multitude — clergy and laity, soldiers and civilians, crowded and commingled into one indiscriminate throng, — that when the living current began to move, nothing but the barrier which fenced in the spot where the commissioner stood could have saved his Grace from being swept away. By a somewhat singular coincidence. Lord Bute had taken up his position Lord Bute right opposite to the picture of that King William wmiiiml under whose auspicious reign the free constitution was ratified to the church of Scotland, upon which, throughout the ten years' conflict, she had taken her stand. Exactly beneath this picture was the narrow 590 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xv. opening in the barrier, by wliicli those who were about to be presented to the representative of majesty had to make their approach. The consequent pressure towards that point forced those who were advancing, against the picture frame. It swayed to and fro, till The King's at last it was forced from the nails upon which it tlie mndera- ,oicture ?he wiih'a hung, — and, as the effigy of the restorer of Scotland's llTmof presbyterian church and religious liberties droj^ped tion settle- from the wall, a voice was heard exclaiming^ from a distant part of the throng, ''There goes the revolu- tion settlement."""' The levee over, the commissioner proceeded, with more than all the customary pomp and circumstance of his semi-regal procession, to the venerable church of St. Giles. The moderator of the preceding as- sembly, the revered and learned Dr. Welsh, preached the sermon, having chosen for his text these appro- Dr. Welsh prlatc words — '' Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. "I Having spoken of the immemorial practice by which the solemn services of public wor- ship had been wisely made to precede the annual meeting of the general assembly, — ''Never," said the preacher, "in the history of the church of Scotland has there been a period when the benefit of such pre- paratory exercises was more urgently required. The controversy that has so long distracted our church and country, is at last to be brought to an issue. "' ""' '^ The events which are in progress are of such magni- * The voice was that of WilHam Ilouison Craufurd, Esq. of Craufunl- latul, the representative of one of Scotland's oldest families, and an uiirtinching supporter of the church of IG'JO. f Rom. xiv. 5. THE DISRUPTION. 5 92 tilde as to carry all along witli them in one or another chap.xv. direction. The collision reaches so far, that all must be involved in it. Nor will the issues of our doinos be limited in their extent, or of temporary interest. The eyes of all Christendom must be attracted to our The soiem- strui»-iile. What is done will not be easily undone : occasion as ~~ •' ilescnlied by and the part that each one of us may this day take, *'^';= p''*'"^''- must send an influence, for good or evil, throughout succeeding generations. In circumstances so momen- tous, having already joined together in earnest suppli- cations for that wisdom which is never denied to those who ask it from above, in faith, nothing wavering, — it now becomes my duty, before we go forth to proclaim to the world what our sentiments are, and to seal our declaration by an irrevocable act, and while we still continue outwardly united as brethren, to take a calm review of those scriptural rules by which we should be guided in this great crisis." Having, accordingly, opened and expounded these rules, with all the accuracy of an accomplished divine, and at the same time with the characteristic clearness and force of his thoroughly philosophic mind, he proceeded to notice some of those appeals by which it was sought to dis- suade himself and his friends from the course, which, in obedience to the principles of his text, they were that day about to pursue. That course, it was alleged by some, was at variance with the spirit of peace. ** You wish for peace," said the preacher, repeating mther on a the emphatic words of Luther, ''but it is the peace of pewe!'"'"^ the world, and not of Christ. Our God has placed His peace in the midst of war. To be free merely from external violence, is not to enjoy real repose : 592 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. chaf. XV. but to be assailed by those around us, and to have all ^eac^^ events against us, and to bear up under all with tran- quillity and joy, this — this is peace. You say with Israel — peace, peace ! — say rather with Christ — the cross, the cross ! — and then the cross will cease to be the cross when you can cry out — Thrice blessed tree, there is no wood like thine." But again, and this was the remonstrance of others — *' Should not we yield to the wishes of earthly superiors, or conform to the practice of our brethren in matters indifferent ? And again the answer is, — We are bound to yield and to conform if the question is one of indifference to ^ei^s^'answer oursclvos, but uot othcrwisc. We cannot yield what tfonl*^" ' conscience claims. The neo^lect of this distinction should we '^ ^°*.f'''^ has proved more destructive of christian integrity of character, than almost any other cause. It has enslaved thousands and tens of thousands to the church of Home : it had well-nigh made shipwreck of the cause of the reformation in Germany, after Luther was taken from the helm : and it still prevails to a woful extent in many of the reformed churches. The insidious form in which it presents itself, constitutes its formidableness. Do you claim infallibility? Do you pretend to more wisdom than many of the wise and good ? Will you peril a holy cause for a position that men, it may be better than yourselves, do not admit? Have you no regard to consequences to your- selves, and those who are dear to you, upon a subject where there is a difference of opinion ? None but those who have been tried can know the torture of cominof o to a resolution in the face of such objections. The frowns of tyrant power, the violence of popular tumult. THE DISRUPTION. 593 the fragments of a falling world, are but vulgar elements chap. xv. for shaking the fixed purpose, in comparison with the ^^nh^trlaf appeal to the modesty and ingenuous candour and self-denying respect for others of the humble christian. And so it often is that the stability of the soul is lost ; and the principles which should form the nourishment of constant virtue, are employed in ministering to its destruction. It is seething the kid in its mother's milk. But the apostle, in the passage before us, presents a rule that frees the humble christian from the ensnaring perplexity, and he again walks in an unclouded sky." The rule was this, — that each man must form his own decision, and act upon his own responsibility. He must answer for himself in the ^,''3/° great day of accounts ; and not on the example or authority of men, but only on what he truly believes to be the mind and will of God, can he venture to ap23ear before the righteous Judge of all. It was about half-past two o'clock when the tramp of the military cavalcade and the sounds of martial music, announced the approach of the Queen's com- missioner to St. Andrew's church, where the assembly had been appointed to meet. Dr. Welsh had arrived Amvaiofthe ^ \ , Moderator and taken his place in the moderator's chair a few ""dcommis- X sioner in, si, minutes before. As the commissioner entered the cimrcu ' church, the assembly and the audience rose to receive him with the deference due to the representative of the crown. The lord advocate, the lord provost of the city, the commander of the forces, and a crowd of other distinguished personages, civil and military, not unmingled with the gentler sex, thronged every inch of the space around the throne. The central area of IT. 2 P 594 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. tliG cliurcli, allotted to the members of assembly, was "'^nd'the'^"' densely filled, while on the front cross bench might be audience. ^^^^^ representatives from various other churches, who had come, many of them, from distant continental coun- tries, to witness the transactions of this memorable day. The rest of the building, from the floor to the roof, presented one living mass, which left no available spot unoccupied within the walls. Hundreds had been there, making sure of their places, since break of day, while thousands more, unable to gain admission, thronged the adjacent street, awaiting, in eager expectancy, the result of those proceedings which were now about to begin. The first movement was towards TheModera- tlic throuc of God, tlic uiodcrator leading the devo- tor's prayer .... and address, tious of tliG niGCtrng m a solemn and earnest jDrayer. As soon as the members had resumed their seats. Dr. Welsh again rose and, amid breathless silence, spoke as follows : — '' Fathers and brethren, according to the usual form of procedure, this is the time for making up the roll ; but in consequence of certain proceedings affecting our rights and privileges — proceedings which have been sanctioned by her majesty's government and by the legislature of the country — and more espe- cially in respect that there has been an infringement on the liberties of our constitution, so that we could not ^torourt'^ now constitute this court without a violation of the constituted, tcmis of tlic uuiou bctwecn church and state in this land, as now authoritatively declared, I must protest against our proceeding further. The reasons that have led me to come to this conclusion are fully set forth in the document which I hold in my hand, and which, with permission of the house, I shall now proceed to THE DISRUPTION. 595 read.""''" This document embodied the solemn protest cnAP.xv. of the church of Scothind against the wrongs of the '^i,'",fej°|f * civil power, and was signed by 203 members of the ^3!'"°" house. *' We, the undersigned ministers and elders," — these were its opening words, — " chosen as commissioners to the general assembly of the church of Scotland, indited to meet this day, but precluded from holding the said assembly, by reason of the circumstances hereinafter set forth, in consequence of which a free assembly of the church of Scotland, in accordance with the laws and constitution of the said church, introducioiy paragrapli. cannot now be holden, — consider, that the legislature, by their rejection of the claim of rights adopted by the last general assembly of the said church, and. their refusal to give redress and protection against the jurisdiction assumed, and the coercion of late repeatedly attempted to be exercised over the courts of the church, in matters spiritual, by the civil courts, have recognized and fixed the conditions of the church establishment, as henceforward to subsist in Scotland to be such as these have been pronounced and declared by the said civil courts in their several recent decisions, in regard to matters spiritual and ecclesiastical." Here the protest specified and described, under Grmuids^of^^ eight distinct heads, the several vitally important points in regard to which it had now been definitively declared by the supreme power of the state, that the civil tribunals had, and henceforth must continue to have, jurisdiction over the church, as a national Vide Appemlix, No. 11., where the Protest will be found in full. 2 p 2 lar matters in which the rights and liberty of the Church have been takeu 59g THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. establislimeiit. These points embraced, — tlie ordina- ^rmatters' ^ioii aiid admissioii of ministers, — the preaching of the gospel, and administration of its ordinances, — the spiritual censm-es of the church, including the deposi- tion of ministers, and the deprivation of licentiates, — the composition and constitution of the church courts, and the exercise of their whole spiritual authority, — processes of church discipline, — the conferring upon ministers of the full spiritual rights of their office, — and the making provision for the extension among the people of the means of grace, according to Christ's institution. Under such a state of things, authoritatively pro- nounced to be the law of the land for the regulation of the established church, the assembly could not now be constituted without the entire and deliberate abandonment of those great principles and prerogatives set forth in the claim of rights, as inherent in the constitution of the reformed church of Scotland. The conditions on which alone the state had thus declared b'/the stTte, that the church could continue to retain her civil bie^Ttrue establishment, were conditions incompatible with her allegiance ^ ^ ^ to Christ. Standards and laws, and to which it was not possible to conform without betraying her allegiance to Him who is her only King and Head, and casting away that precious birthright of spiritual liberty with which He had made her free. " We, therefore," the protest continued, '' the ministers and elders aforesaid, on this the first occa- sion, since the rejection by the legislature of the church's claim of rights, when the commissioners chosen from throughout the bounds of the church to the general tions thus THE DISRUPTION. 5917- assembly appointed to have been this day holden, are chap.xv. convened together, do protest that the conditions '^ti'^,7/,°^^'- aforesaid, while we deem them contrary to and subver- ItaTutes, sive of the settlement of church i^-overnment effected tm™y,\ina o God's word. at the revolution, and solemnly guaranteed by the act of security and treaty of union, are also at variance with God's word, in opposition to the doctrines and fundamental principles of the church of Scotland, inconsistent with the freedom essential to the right constitution of a church of Christ, and incompatible with the government which He, as the Head of His church, hath therein appointed, distinct from the civil magistrate. *^And we further protest, that any assembly con- stituted in submission to the conditions now declared ^jo^^^^^f^^^^y to be law, and under the civil coercion which has been oondTtiou?^ brouo-ht to bear, in the election of commissioners to the beheid.'a » ' , lawful A.S. assembly this day appointed to have been holden, and thlTctarch on the commissioners chosen thereto, is not, and shall °^^'°"^''^- not, be deemed a free and lawful assembly of the church of Scotland." And finally, while adhering to the great principle, that it is the right and duty of the civil magis- trate to support and maintain an establishment of reli- gion constituted according to God's word, — and while reserving the liberty to seek, by all lawful and compe- tent means, to recover those rights which ancient statutes and solemn treaties had ratified to the church of Scotland, — ''We protest that, in the circumstances in which we are placed, it is, and shall be lawful for us, and such other commissioners chosen to the assembly, appointed to have been this day holden, as may concur with US;, to withdraw to a separate place of meeting, for 598 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. tliG pui'pose of taking steps, along with all who adhere ^hoidtuo be to ^^> — maintaining with us the confession of faith rigMaut"^ and standards of the church of Scotland, as heretofore raVthe"'"''' uuderstood, — for separating in an orderly way from staTe."'' the establishment; and thereupon adopting such mea- sures as may be competent to us, in humble depend- ence on God's grace and the aid of the Holy Spirit, for the advancement of His glory, the extension of the gospel of our Lord and Saviour, and the administra- tion of the affairs of Christ's house, according to His holy word: and we now withdraw accordingly, hum- bly and solemnly acknowledging the hand of the Lord in the things which have come upon us, because of our manifold sins, and the sins of this church and nation; but at the same time, with an assured conviction that They are not wc arc uot rcspousible for any consequences that may responsible ••■ ^ a ^ 8equence°s"of follow froui tlils our cuforccd separation from an separaWoT establishment which we loved and prized, through interference with conscience, the dishonour done to Christ's crown, and the rejection of His sole and supreme authority as King in his church." When the last of these solemn sentences had left the moderator's lips, he laid the protest upon the table of the house, and turning round towards the commissioner, who rose in evident and deep emotion, Dr. Welsh Dr. Wclsli bowcd respectfully to the representative of bows to the . . ^ione"r"the ^hc quccu, aiid in so doing, bade the church of Scot- thc^church land's farewell to the state. That brief but solemn to the civil ,.,_ , - IT/" 1 ' ^ power. and significant action done, he lifted his hat from the table and went forth from the degraded establishment. As he moved w^ith calm dignity from the chair. Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Gordon, Dr. Patrick M'Farlan, Dr. THE DISRUPTION. 599 Thomas Brown, Dr. M'Donalcl, the fathers of the chap. xv. church, men who were its strength and glory, one after ^,'etiil-esjie u another, rose and followed him. It w^as a moment of tueMhers^ intense and overpowering interest. Ihe immense ciwrch. audience looked on, thrilled with feelings which it is impossible to describe, — but not a voice, not a whisper was heard. The sensation was too deep for utterance; in very many, not females alone, but strong-minded men, it found vent in tears. The veteran warriors of the church's conflict were leading the way; how many were to follow? This evidently was the agitating inquiry which at that moment absorbed the minds of those who, with the incredulity of infatuation, had hitherto treated the event, which had now come, as a delusion and a dream. The chief law officer of the Anxiety of certain on- crown, who stood beside the commissioner, looked '°°''"^" down from his elevated position with an anxiety which no effort could disguise, to mark how far his previous representations to men in power, and the facts now before him, might be found to agree. Dr. Candlish, Dr. Cunningham, Mr. Campbell, of Monzie, Mr. Dunlop, and others, familiar names in the struggle which had now reached its close, were seen moving on after those who had gone before. These are men committed, compromised, by the prominent part they have played in this warfare ; they cannot do other- wise; they cannot draw back, — and the establishment will be quieter when they have retired. But the wiiimorc ^ . , •' than tlie quiet country ministers occupying these crowded |viiuhe^°'' benches behind, — it is not possible that they can tr"ymhSs.°' design to cast themselves and their families into the midst of poverty and want. Such, probably, were the ters? QQQ THE TEN YE IRS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. tlioughts tliat Were rivetting the feverish gaze of more ^uVs°tTeam' ^^^^^^ ^^^^ high legal functionary upon the constantly bench^'to- expanding blank that yawned so ominously on the left doOT.' '' side of the house, — as bench after bench poured its occupants into the stream which kept constantly flowinor towards the door of the church. There was o no hurry, no rush, no confusion. Rank after rank the protesters withdrew, with the order and steadiness of the successive companies of a militaiy host. One entire side of the assembly, and the whole of the cross benches, were left untenanted. The life had departed from the establishment, and those who remained, ''^nVthea/-' gazcd upou tlic empty space as if they had been look- nect of those • • , Uo remain. lUg lUtO aU OpCU graVO. But where was now the head of that column of con- fessors which had marched forth from St. Andrew's church? As those who led it on emerged into the street, — as the gown and bands of the moderator, the grey hairs of the massive head of Chalmers, and the majestic brow of Gordon, seen through the opening crowd, proclaimed that the deed was done, — a whis- per ran like wildfire through the congregated multi- ^theconie>- tudcs, '' They couic ! they come!" — and the air was multitudes rent with the shout of admiration and gratitude with which the people gave Scotland's welcome to the defenders of the liberties of Scotland's church. It was neither the design nor the wish of the protesting body to move in procession to their intended place of meeting, but the crowd constrained them. By a spon- taneous movement on the part of the masses who filled the streets, a lane was opened in their midst, — and through the surging sea of the excited but pro- THE DISRUPTION. 601 foundly respectful throng, did the host pass out of chap. xv. Egypt, to take possession of that '' large and wealthy '^t'l, rough ^a'''' place" which the Lord had provided for them. towurdr''^ i •■- _ their future In the manner now described, the procession moved «^^tmg- on towards Canonmills, a suburb lying at the northern extremity of the city. Here an immense hall, capa- ble of accommodating at least 3000 persons, had been procured, and hastily fitted up for the reception of the disestablished assembly. From an early hour of the day, the entire area, with the exception of the space set apart for the members, was crowded in every part, — and when at length the eagerly expected moment Sj^,|;™^'^}}';f arrived, and the representatives of the protesting Aslemwy. church were seen entering the hall, the enthusiasm of the audience knew no bounds. When this irre- pressible outburst of feeling had subsided. Dr. Welsh, who had meanwhile taken the chair, rose and lifted up his hands as the signal for prayer. No one who was present on that memorable occasion can forget, while he lives, the thrilling pathos and overpowering solemnity of that prayer. It carried back the mind to the days of the Redeemer's flesh, — when He, the The thriiung •' _ prayer of church's now exalted Head and Lord, Himself dwelt ^'r^^cbh. on earth, — and when, upon the mountain side, or by the shores of the sea of Galilee, with no covering but the canopy of heaven above those who followed Him, He had preached the gospel of the grace of God : and it sought that His presence might be w^ith His servants now, when they too were about to go forth into the open fields, compelled to forsake the pleasant tabernacles of their fathers, in order to maintain (J 02 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. uubrokeii tlieir fathers' testimony for Christ's cove- nant and crown. The prayer ended, and the immense audience having resumed their seats. Dr. Welsh, after a short ^x)r'.'wei°ii. pause, again rose and said — *' Reverend fathers and brethren, I presume our first duty, in the circum- stances in which we are placed, unquestionably is the choice of a moderator: and I feel assured, that the eyes of every individual in this assembly — the eyes of the whole church and country — the eyes of all Christendom, are directed to one individual, whom to name is to pronounce his panegyric. In the exhausted state in which my numerous duties have left me, it is scarce in my power to say more; but indeed I feel that more would be superfluous. The extent of his labours, in connection with our present j)osition, ^Dnchli! would justly entitle Dr. Chalmers, — (at the mention of Moderator his name the whole vast audience rose, and gave vent, oftheFiee , i p , i Assembly: by ouc spoutaueous burst ot rapturous applause, to auto^nce^*" tlie love aud admiration which that name awakened in every breast,) — ^would justly entitle that great man," Dr. Welsh continued, so soon as he was allowed to proceed, '' to hold the first place in this our meeting. But surely it is a good omen, or rather I should say a token for good, from the great Disposer of all events, and the alone Head of the church, that I can propose to hold this office an individual who, by the efforts of his genius and his virtues, is destined to hold so conspicuous a place in the eyes of all posterity. But this, I feel, is taking but a low view of the subject. His genius has been devoted to the service of his THE DISRUPTION. g03 heavenly Master, — and his is the high honour pro- chap. xv. mised to those who, having laboured successfully in their Master's cause, and turned many to righteous- ness, are to shine as the stars for ever and ever." ** I deeply feel, fathers and brethren," said Dr. ^DrS- Chalmers, when he took the chair, '' my inadequacy for the labours of the office which you have been pleased to confer upon me. I undertake it in fear, and in weakness, and in much trembling. But we have a warrant, when urged by the feeling of insuffi- ciency, for making a devout approach to Him in whom alone strength and sufficiency are to be found. I beg to propose, that we shall begin, before proceeding to the business of this assembly, by an act of worship and by prayer to almighty God, on the duties and prospects which lie before us." A heavy thundercloud had for some time darkened the heavens, and as the eye ranged at that particular moment over the dense mass of human beinofs who covered the immense area of the low-roofed hall, individual forms had almost ceased to be distinguish- able throuo^h the sombre shade. The psalm which xhepsaim: ^ ■•■ darkness Dr. Chalmers had chosen was the XLIII. He began 5?"^'"'° at that touching and beautiful line — ** 0 send thy light forth and thy truth:" and as the words sounded through the hall, the sun, escaping from behind his cloudy covering, and darting through the windows which pierced the roof, his bril- liant beams turned on the instant the preceding dark- ness into day. It was one of those incidents which only superstition could misunderstand, — but which, recapitu lates the grounds of the disrup- tion. (504 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. at the same time, is entitled to its own place among those traits of the picturesque which belonged to the scenes we are describing. Dr. Chalmers The dcvotions beinaj concluded. Dr. Chalmers, as moderator, addressed the house ; and after recapitu- lating, succinctly and clearly, the grounds of the dis- ruption, as these were embodied in the protest, — and having spoken of the rejection by the legislature, of the appeal in vindication of her claims, which the church had made to that ecclesiastical constitution which the state itself had ratified, — he j^roceeded thus: " We now make a higher appeal, from our constitu- tion, which has been disregarded, to our conscience, which tells us, that the ecclesiastical ought not to be subjected to the civil power, in things spiritual. We are, therefore, compelled, though with great reluctance and deep sorrow of heart, to quit the advantages of the British establishment, because she has fallen from her original principles, in the hope that we shall be suffered to prosecute our labours in peace on the ground of British toleration. These are the principles that have occasioned the movements of this day, and brought us together on the present occasion. And now, reverend fathers and brethren, it is well that you The strength sliould liavc bccu Strengthened by your Master in that has , - - ° ^ 1 , been re- hcaveu to mako the surrender you have done, or every ceivcd by all •' ^ J sacrmcinf thiug that is dear to nature, — casting aside all your .i"y^° '* earthly dependence rather than ojBfend conscience, incur the guilt of sinful compliance by thwarting your own sense of duty, and run counter to the bible, our great church directory and statute book. It is well that you have made for the present a clear escape THE DISRUPTION. 605 from this condemnation, — and that in the issue of the chap.iv. contest between a sacrifice of principle and a sacrifice ^t° "."''"j'tijg of your worldly possessions, you have resolved upon eyl"of feitb" the latter; and while, to the eye of some, you are without a provision and a home, embarked on a wide sea of uncertainty, save that great and generous cer- tainty which is apprehended by the eye of faith, that God reigneth, and that He will not forsake the fami- lies of the faithful. We read in the scriptures, and I believe it will be found true in the history and expe- rience of God's people, that there is a certain light, and joyfulness, and elevation of spirit, consequent upon a moral achievement such as this. There is a certain felt triumph, like that of victory after conflict, attending upon a practical vindication, which con- Thejoywi.ich , 1 p 1 111 tlie testi- science has made oi her own supremacy, when she has monyofa •'■ • good consci- been plied by many and strong temptations to degrade ^'""' '"'"'"s'- or to dethrone her. Apart from Christianity altogether, there has been realized a joyfulness of heart, a proud swelling of conscious integrity, when a conquest has been effected by the higher over the inferior powers of our nature : and so, among christians too, there is a legitimate glorying, as when the disciples of old gloried in the midst of their tribulations, when the spirit of glory and of God rested on them, when they were made partakers of the divine nature and escaped the corruption that is in the world : or as when the apostle Paul rejoiced in the testimony of his con- science. But let us not forget in the midst of this rejoicing, the deep humility that pervaded their songs '^/^*yip'2''4^tjj of exultation : the trembling which these holy men '^■''^"''""s- mixed with their mirth : trembling arising from a The need of humility. Clerks of As- sembly chosen; and the Protest read. Jfotion of Dr. Candlish in reference to those who may ad- here to the Protest. (306 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. sense of tlieir own weakness : and then courage, inspired by the thought of that aid and strength which were to be obtained out of His fuhiess who formed all their boasting and all their defence. Never in the history of our church were such feelings and such acknowledgments more called for than now: and in the transition we are making, it becomes us to reflect on such sentiments as these, — ' Not me, but the grace of God in me,' — and, 'let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.' " When the moderator concluded his address, the Rev. Dr. Duncan, of Ruthwell, moved that the Rev. Dr. Clason, of Edinburgh, and the Rev. Thomas Pitcairn, of Cockpen, be appointed clerks of the assembly. These gentlemen having assumed their places at the table, — a copy of the protest which had been taken in the presence of the queen's commissioner was read, along with the names attached to it. ''The number who had signed that protest," said Dr. Can- dlish, when the reading of the document had been completed, " were a majority of those whom alone they could recognize as the lawful members of as- sembly: and he had to propose that the protest should lie open for signature by other members, and that their signatures should be held ipso facto as admitting them members of this assembly. In addition to this protest, a concurrence in it had been signed by those who were not members of assembly, and he had now to propose that the assembly should at once assume into their body, as members of the house, all the 7ninisters who had signed that concurrence, together with one elder from every adhering kirk-session." The THE DISRUPTION. 607 motion was adopted with tlie most cordial mianimitj. chap. xy. The Rev. Dr. Patrick M'Farhin thereupon proposed ^^S^^;;- the appointment of a committee to consider in what theoemis." way, consistently with the forms of law, the individual ^p^^efices, protesting ministers could best, and most speedily, complete the renunciation of their benefices. Another committee was appointed to prepare an address to her majesty, for the purpose of announcing, formally and respectfully to the head of the state, the fact of the disruption, and the grounds on which the church had thus renounced her establishment. On the motion of Mr. Dunlop, arrangements were made for proceeding, at subsequent diets, with the ordinary business of the church, and especially in so far as it related to her great missionary and educational schemes. The tem- Arrangement porary jar occasioned by the act of separating from I'fo^^^""^® the state, was already over, and the church, unchanged in any one point or particular of her ecclesiastical constitution and internal economy, — with her stand- ards, her laws, and her whole presbyterian policy intact and entire, — held on her course as if nothing had occurred. A single word was employed to mark the event which had taken place. She had arisen from the dust in which the temporal power had sought to prostrate her divine prerogatives : she had scorn- fully cast from her neck the bands by which civil sunremacv would have fettered the exercise of her The church i J ^ lincl Mi nil spiritual functions : she had restored into the state's hands those secular immunities and emoluments, the possession of which had been made the pretext for attempting to rob her of her sacred liberty : she had put on the beautiful garments in which the bridegroom had left all 608 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. bad arrayed lier when he brought her out of the bon- dage of Babylon three centuries before, — and m order to hand down to posterity a simple, but significant memorial of this moral triumph, and of the sacrifice ^orflMF, at the cost of which it had been won, she had selected [he memory tliis, as the superscHption that was henceforth to be of tliis noble , ^ ■*• deed. written over her, THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. CONCLUSION. The Bond Before drawing this history to a close, a brief glance ^««- must be bestowed, j^rsi, upon the Bond establishment, and last upon the Free church, which had forsaken it. When the protestors withdrew from St. Andrew's church, the skeleton of an assembly that was left behind proceeded to put its shattered framework into TheAss^cni- shapc aud motion. To restore the lost equilibrium mS'when of ^ uow onc-sidcd house, the section already noticed CT8h^adwith. by their self-invented name of the Forty, hastened to drawn. cast their great weight into the empty scale. Rush- ing across the house, Curtius-like to fill up the yawn- ing gulph which the recent ecclesiastical earthquake had made in the forum of the church, they threw themselves upon the deserted benches of the non- iiie Forty intrusiouists. In the places that had been occupied take posses- i J- by Drs. Chalmers and Gordon, Candlish and Cun- ningham, Dr. Cook now beheld, confronting him, other foemen whom that veteran moderate leader pro- sion of til e non-intru- sion bench- THE BOND ESTABLISHiMENT. QQQ bably considered not quite so *' worthy of liis steel." chap. xv. Not to shock their tender sensibilities too severely or too °n;f°iut'"'' soon, he allowed the delicate question of the position of Zee the 11 1 • ' n a 11* 1 •t-i rigorous re- the deposed mnnsters or fetrathboo-ie to stand over till a gi^f of subsequent day. These men had commissioned two of their number, as they did the year before, to repre- sent them as members of assembly. Among the soi clisant reformers, on whom it now devolved to guard the spiritual independence of the establishment, some had voted, and many more had concurred, in the deposition of the seven brethren, and all of them had hitherto professed to regard it as, at the very least, a competent ecclesiastical act, which only another, and opposite exercise of church authority could set aside. To sit down, therefore, side by side, with these deposed men — to treat the solemn deed done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, by the general assem- bly of the church of Scotland, as if it were a thing The Forty get of nouo-ht, was a step to which they could not be to Take up ^ ^ ^ *' ^ tlieir minds expected, all at once, to make up their minds. When p^ct'ofCu- tlie de- tlie question actually came on, a few days afterwards, p„scdmeu on Monday the 22d of May, and when Dr. Mearns, ters. with the imperturbable consistency of his own rigid and unyielding moderatism, declared, that the sen- tences of suspension and deposition which had been pronounced upon the seven ministers " were ah initio null and void," — and that, without more ado, these ministers must be held and recognized as having always been, and as being now, in full possession of all their ministerial and presbyterial rights and pri- '^^l^fj^p^fj;^^ vileges : the sensation produced among the remanent ntiund representatives of evangelical and reforming principles May'.°" 11. 2 Q QIQ THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. was verj Considerable. The Rev. Mr. Storie of Rose- ^sTon^'"' neath warned Dr. Mearns of the danger his motion i)r?coo"k might be found to involve, and " stated that upon this with a new , . . . • j » mi secession, questiou he anticipated another secession. Ihe Rev. Mr. Tait of Kirkliston " could not agree to the proposition involved in Dr. Mearns' motion, that, in reality, no sentence of deposition had been pro- nounced." The Rev. Mr. Stewart of Sorn, who had been, till very recently, a flaming professor of non- intrusion and spiritual independence principles, sup- ported Mr. Storie's views in everything, save in the ^te^viof ^^"^* about a new secession. *' He trusted indeed that st."tes!but' his reverend friends on the other side (Dr. Mearns, account tfec.) would weio'h well the consequences which would leave tlie / O i Assembly. foUow, if thcy Carried their motion; but let their decision be what it might, he would never leave this assembly nor the church." Dr. Mearns had, no doubt, weighed the consequences of his motion well enoufjli, and had seen nothinsf to fear : and thouQ-h the Rev. Dr. Hill of Glasgow tried, by a gentler motion, to let Mr. Storie and his friends somewhat more softly down, the spirit of Aberdeenshire was now in the ascendant, and the motion of Dr. Mearns was ^motrmi''c'ar- caiTicd by a majority of 148 to 33. The reader will ned^byus ^^^^ £_^jj^ -^^ passlng, to obscrve, that these two num- bers united fall greatly short of the number, 203, who had signed the protest, and who had subsequently constituted the assembly of the Free church of Scotland. This was already the second trial by which the submissiveness of Mr. Storie and his confederates had been put to the test. On the forenoon of that same day the veto-law had disappeared, by a process THE BOND ESTABLISHMENT. QH not less summary, from the statute book of the chap.xv. establishment. In introducing the discussion of the subject, Dr. Cook spoke of it as already dead and gone. He declined to enter upon **the merits of their T^\«p'^eto-|aw departed friend — the veto-law." After a few remarks, lummS he accordingly moved that - •■' "" " it be an instruction 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 procurator, Mr. Bell, now also among the defaulters in the day of battle, made an effort to preserve at least the shadow of ecclesiastical authority, by moving, as an amend- ment, that an overture be transmitted to presbyteries for the repeal of the veto-act, in the old constitutional way. Mr. Robertson, anticipating, with reason, an easy victory in this sham-light, congratulated the house on the altered state of things. " It was Rev m.-. no. O bertstJii of pleasing," he said, " to find that the dawn of pros- Ji',',™,!;;™; perity had now broken on them, and that after on^lle"K- , turn of pros- maintaining their principles m the face of large p"%- majorities, the constitutional-law was again to pre- vail." The Rev. Mr. Storie said, — '* The act was an ecclesiastical act, and must be cancelled ecclesi- astically." The Rev. Mr. M'Leod, of Dalkeith, was of the same mind. '* He wished to repeal the veto constitutionally," and therefore he supported Mr. Storie's views. Principal Lee, too, had g^'^at Pn.icipai^u^ difficulties about this modern method of disposing of "iJ^^JiY"' the solemn sentences and laws of the church. To cast wuhouum act of rc- them out as dead corpses at the bidding of the court v^^- of session, and to deny them even the poor privilege 2q2 Q12 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cuAP.xv. of a decent burial, — no wonder that it shook to its topmost fibre the magnificent feather with which the learned principal had been accustomed, as clerk of Dr.Lee'f asseniblv, to record them. He had ''doubts as to speech on "^ ... • r> i the subject, ^jjjg assembly exhibiting a full representation of the church. Twenty presbyteries, and various burghs, were not represented at all. He hesitated with regard to the degree of weight which might be given to a house so inadequately representing the church. He would have no hesitation in agreeing to any motion suspending the operation of this act till another general assembly should meet: that was a different thing from absolutely and in all time coming, undoing what had been done by a former assembly. ' ' Dr. Cook, however, could not afford to listen to these remonstrances, even though they came, some of them, from his own friends. ^rouwtot To admit that the act had still a place among the gil^e'tlyto statutes of the church, would have been to condemn montrances: that cutiro courso of proceedinix which he and his party and tlie rea- i o i j son why. 1^^^^ pursued. To allow that there needed an act of the church to repeal it, would have been to allow that it was still a reality, and still in force. And what, in that case, would have become of all the defences which Dr. Cook had made, and which his followers had sustained, in support of the recusant ministers of Strathbogie! Mr. Storie might not see what the principles of the moderate party required, — but Dr. Cook saw it, and had made up his mind to go through with it. It was a principle that put the standards, acts, and laws of the church, into the hands of the civil court, and which empowered that court to draw its pen through them at will, — and however humbling THE BOND ESTABLISHMENT. (513 tlie application of the principle might be, it was now chap. xv. too late to quarrel with it. Mr. Storie and his friends '^^^JtH might make wry faces, but the drug must be swallowed. They had nothing for it but to wipe their lips, and say with Sterne — " Slavery, still slavery, thou art a bitter draught." Dr. Cook's motion was carried with- out a vote. At another diet of the same assembly — Tuesday, Pariiamen- taryChurcli- 23d of May — the act of 1833, admitting the ministers g^Ji^.t. of the parliamentary churches, — and the act of 1834, un^nwuh admittinfT the ministers of chapels of ease to the &c.rau«- ... puiiged. exercise of the full rights of their spiritual office, — and also the act of 1839, admitting to the same rights the ministers of the associate synod, who then returned to the communion of the established church, — these acts were all of them, ''at one fell swoop," expunged from the records of the bond establishment. The kirk sessions and parishes, quoad sacra, of all the three classes of ministers to whom these several acts referred, were thus declared, by the submissive assembly, to have been laid in their graves by the resistless exorcism of the court of session. While the ministers themselves of these defunct sessions and obliterated parishes had shrunk back, like men with one arm in a sling, maimed by a blow from the secular tribunals, into their old anomalous position. TheyEAfectof had lost the prerogative, and fallen from the duty cccouigs. which Christ had attached to their office, as pastors of cono;re2;ations, of rulinsf their flocks, and of sharino- in the spiritual oversight of the church. The acts were not even " rescinded," by a vote of the assembly. That expression had to be erased from Lord Belhaven's Like the ser- vile parlia- ment ijf Cliarlcs IT., tlie IJund ■as great in ucts rescis sory. (314 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. motion before Mr. Robertson of Ellon and Dr. Cook would consent to it. They had "been incompetently passed " at first; so, at least, the majority of the court of session, in deciding the Stewarton case, had said ; and this was enough. The assembly had nothing more to do than to find and declare accordingly. The famous, or rather infamous act rescissory of the servile parliament of Charles II., was not more sum- /irsemMy marv or sweeping than the process by which the not nas great in •' 1 O i- .' less servile assembly of the degraded establishment, effaced that whole series of reforming measures which had signalized the decade of evangelical ascendency. Nor did it fare better with the discipline than with the legislation of the church. Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Middleton, were cleared of all censure, and their forced settlements confirmed. Mr. Clark, the pre- sentee to Lethendy, had his licence restored. The hands had gone back on the dial of history from 1843 to 1762. The dynasty of Chalmers had disappeared, and that of Robertson had been restored : and with this important and fatal aggravation of the change, that what was, in the eighteenth century, a merely administrative corruption, was now a corruption en- grained in the constitution of the erastianized and dishonoured establishment. It was not till Wednesday, the 24th of May, the assembly of the establishment took up the protest which embodied the deed of the disruption. Dr. Cook introduced the subject in a grave and respectful speech, at the close of which he moved, that the churches of those ministers who had signed the protest, be declared vacant, and that the necessary steps should be taken dial from 18i3tol76: THE BOND ESTABLISHMENT. (315 to have a similar declaration pronounced in regard to chap.xv. all other ministers who had adhered, or who should adhere to it. In making this motion, which after some discussion was unanimously adopted. Dr. Cook took occasion to advert to the protest itself. '" It will '^nuJt™'/'* be proper," he said, " that an examination of the examtaJd ^ '■ ^ and answer- minutest kind should be made of this protest : that a ''^■ formal answer to it should be drawn up, which should be widely circulated throughout the country. We are, I have no doubt, agreed upon the point, that the pleas put forth by the protesters are in a very great degree fallacious pleas: that their views of acts of parliament are erroneous views : and we are perfectly at one in this, that their interpretations of these acts are not interpretations which, down to the last as- sembly, have ever been put upon the statutes, or were considered by the assembly to be legitimate interpre- tations. I therefore think it necessary, and it should be understood, that there is to be a committee ap- a committee to be ap- pointed to prepare such a minute answer as I have PjXju'l.pose. suggested, and that that will be done after the dis- cussion of this day." The committee was appointed accordingly, — and on Monday, the 29th, the day on which the assembly closed its sittings, the Rev. Dr. Simpson brought up that committee's report. The report having been read, and the assembly being of opinion that it did not meet the case, the procurator produced a series of resolutions which he Report of the hoped might be found more satisfactory. They elicited some compliments, but they too were found wanting. Mr. David INIilne, advocate, had concurred with those in the committee who thought that such generalities coninuttce on the Pi test. QIQ THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. as the repoi't indulged in, would not do, — and that " a specific answer should be given to the protest." The procurator's answer, though in the specific form, was not specific enough, as Mr. Milne judged, and he had himself accordingly prepared another, which he Ti.reean- j-gad to tho assemblv. Here were three answers, — Imt'nonf "* but thc asseuiblj did not think it safe to commit V ^"''' itself to any of them. The shrewder men saw at a glance, that it was not with such small artillery they could hope to silence the formidable fire of the protest. In these circumstances, Mr. Robertson, of Ellon, jDroposed a motion, which after commending the diligence of the committee, and saying a few civil words concerning the attempts at an answer which had Rev. Mr. bceu uiadc, went on to declare, " that a paper so im- Robertson's ., . , . motiipure- portaut as the protest under consideration, requires to appointing J- A ^ thecommit- |jg auswcrcd with greater care, and with fuller leisure for mature deliberation than it has been found possible to give it, during the pressure of business which the assembly have had to sustain; and also, that in ques- tions involving important points of jurisdiction, the bearings of the various judgments which have been recently pronounced by the civil courts in the nume- rous cases that have arisen from the illegal main- tenance, on the part of the church, of the act on calls, and of the act with reference to parliamentary and quoad sacra churches, should be very carefully and maturely considered, — the general assembly recom- mit the whole case for the further consideration of Tliey arc in- reporuoue ^"®"' committeo, and instruct them, accordingly, to h'TS"" report on the whole case to the commission in August." The assembly, at the same time, added various names THE BOND ESTABLISHMENT. gji^ to the committee, so as to concentrate on tliis business citAP xv. what Dr. Cook dechired it would require, the '' best wisdom " of the house. In due time tlie August commission met, and the committee's report was appointed to be taken up on the following day. On The mil n at 11 Auo-ust, 1843, till now, the answer to the protest has pointe'i; O ' ' ' I and the i the following day, the commission could not be con- '^J'^orum o" stituted for want of a quorum, and from that month of ^"'^°"'™"" Protest is never more practically confessed, that the protest is unanswerable, heard of. After acknowledging that they were bound to answer it, — and after again and again trying to answer it, — they finally abandoned the attempt. This is a fact which intelligent onlookers have already noted, — and to which an inij^artial posterity will not fail to point, — as the virtual admission of the establishment itself, that it is not the true church of Scotland. There were a few among the sincere non-intrusion- ists who had clung to the hope, that even at the last moment government would interpose to avert the disruption. The last refuge of those who had been indulging in this pleasing dream, was the queen's letter to the general assembly. This, they fondly thought, was to be the gracious medium through which "^igit^r^and* the good tidings they anticipated were at length to be ex'lferted'^ proclaimed. Alas ! when it was opened, " it con- tained," as one of these too credulous expectants of deliverance said, '' a vague promise with regard to the question of non-intrusion; and with regard to other matters, it said, in effect, that if you, the church, will allow the civil court to put their foot on your necks, — then, perhaps, we will endeavour to alleviate Gl THE TEX YEARS' CONFLICT, Chap. 'XV. your sufferings."""" The passage of the royal letter to Passage of ^hich thls stateiiieiit refers was couched in these tlie Koyal Soiegu. words:— '' The church of Scotland, occupying its true position in friendly alliance with the state, is justly entitled to expect the aid of parliament in removing any doubts which may have arisen with respect to the right construction of the statutes relating to the ad- mission of ministers. You may safely confide in the wisdom of parliament, and we shall readily give our assent to any measure which the legislature may pass, for the purpose of securing to the people the full pri- vilege of objection, and to the church judicatories the exclusive right of judgment." In a word, if the establishment would accept, as a salve to heal its wounds, the formerly rejected bill of Lord Aberdeen, it was still in his lordship's laboratory, and might be Robertson, of Ellon, thought this proposed legislation had for the askinor. Dr. Mearns, Dr. Cook, and Mr. The mnder- O ate leaders would lath- noi.m!but was at best needless, — and they would rather have to please Lord Aber- deen and civilly dechned it altogether. Out of deference, how- tKv\°g.Te ever, to Lord Aberdeen, and to the little section whose fall from their old non-intrusion principles the bill was meant to break, they agreed, not without some difficulty, to a paragraph in the answer to her majesty's letter, which intimated their wilHngness to accept of the proffered bill. Accordingly, on the 13th of June, tlie bill was brought into the house of lords by Lord Aberdeen. It was the old bill made a little more stringent. The former version of it condemned, by * Statement of" David Dickson, Esq. of Ilartree, who left the assembly of the establishment the instant the queen's letter was read, and betook himself to the assembly of the free protesting church of Scotland. THE BOND ESTABLISHMENT. gjg implication, the principle of the veto-law: the present chap.xv. version condemned it in express terms. Even a^?'"''^'f';: , 1 deeti's bill of liberum arhitrium measure, such as Dr. Chalmers swn^eiT and the non-intrusion committee had described in their isio. corres^^ondence with Lord Aberdeen, in 1840, — and such as had more recently been described in the course of the negotiations originated by Sir George Sinclair, would now have been too late. Had parliament passed such a measure previous to the 8th of March, 1843, it might, in that case, have been fair and competent for the church to maintain that the state had not sanctioned the jurisdiction which had been assumed in matters ecclesiastical by the courts of law. But after repudiating, as parliament did, on the 8th of March, the church's claim of rights, — and thus giving, ^veua genu- ■^ o o ' me iiou iii- in the most explicit form, their affirmation to those principles on which the courts of law had proceeded, — a mere non-intrusion bill would have come too late, p'r'ianient had rejecteu Such a measure, passed subsequently to that decisive lights!'""''^ event, would have done nothing to restore the inde- pendence in matters spiritual of the church. It would simply have delegated, in reference to one specific matter, a certain amount of jurisdiction to the church courts, — but of jurisdiction to be held and exercised, as matter of course, under a full reservation of the supremacy of the courts of law. The bill of Lord Aberdeen was not only liable to this fatal exception, but liable to it with this additional aggravation — that Tins wu was '='° ^ not a non- it was not, m any sense of the term ever sanctioned jj,'|.'^"^°j' by tlie church, a non-intrusion measure at all. In the course of the long and elaborate speech which his lordship made, when bringing in the bill, a remark tiusion measure would have eonie too te— after g20 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. fVom 0116 of tliG peci's clicited from him this observa- tion ill reply, " No liberum arhitrium, but the utmost Uherum judicium, if you please."* What this bill Lord Camp- does for the people, observed Lord Campbell, on the the?gr^ 13th July, 1843, when it was read a third time and g-lve'to'W passed by the house of lords, is to declare ''the right people. „ . . of grumbling on the part oi every congregation in Scotland." " No doubt of that," as the Duke of Wellington significantly replied to Lord Campbell's remark. But what does the bill do for the presbytery? If the people state their reasons for grumbling, — and if these reasons be such as the bill allows, — and if, still further, they be reasons of which the presbytery will undertake to pronounce judicially, that, all things considered, they are good and sufficient reasons for rejecting the presentee, the bill will permit them to reject him accordingly: always, however, with this imj^ortant proviso — that the presbytery's judgment shall be liable to be reviewed and reversed by the The bill en- courts of law. First, the bill puts the cono^refvation slaves the ' ■•■ . Kytcryr ui^^i^r the heel of the presbytery, — and next, with preshytcry even-haudcd iustice, it puts the presbytery under the to the Court, i r , o • J J ofbcssion. heel 01 the court or session. While the bill was under discussion in the house of lords, a fact came broadly out which will not fail to suggest some curious reflections to the reader's mind. It will not be forgotten that the first Auchterarder judgment was the immediate occasion of bringing the civil and ecclesiastical courts into collision ; and in the hands of the Dean of Faculty, and his friends, became * Report of debate in House of Lords — Scottish Guardian, June 16, 1843. A curious fact. lueut. THE BOND ESTABLISHMENT. g21 the lever tliat loosened the foundation of the ancient chap.xv. constitutional bulwarks of the church's spiritual inde- pendence, and, finally, levelled them in the dust. That judgment was founded on a view of the law which the house of lords now, in effect, declared to have been erroneous. The bill of Lord Aberdeen did not pro- inra Aber- ^ 1 1 1 • 1 lieeu's biU fess to make any change of the law, but simply to |*,,^'''jf";i';p remove doubts as to what the law really was and all jmigcTwilo^ alonff had been. But, nevertheless, what it did Inchtenir- ^ 1 1 T i^ ''^'^ decision, declare to be the law. Lords Oottenham and ft'^j™,,|J.g"g' Brougham expressly and emphatically affirmed was rawfrom" not the law accordino' to which they had given iudef- wuiciith.-y o J o J o g;iive judg- ment in the Auchterarder case. " If," said Lord Cottenham, '* the judgment pronounced in that case was a right one, the present bill was not in accordance with what he conceived to be the existing law of Scot- land, and, entertaining that view, he could not agree with the second reading" of the bill. On the same occasion, Lord Brougham, his colleague in the Auch- terarder judgment, concluded his speech in these words : — " On these grounds, he held that, if the pre- sent bill were to be considered as truly declaring the law, their lordships should not have decided the Audi- sequence ■' A oppose the terarder case as they did ; but he knew the bill did not correctly declare the law, and, therefore, his opinion remained unchanged, that the Auchterarder case had been properly decided." In these views Lords Cottenham and Brougham — supported by Lord Campbell, who had been counsel for the parties who gained the Auchterarder judgment — persisted to the last, and that so strenuously, that even on the third reading of the bill. Lord Cottenham insisted on having Lords Gotten- li:im and Brougham in con- biU. 622 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. liis amendment against it put from the chair, in order that his objections to the bill might appear in the minutes of the house. Notwithstanding of this oppo- sition, the house of lords did pass the bill, and, by so doing, placed themselves in the position of having, in their judicial capacity, declared one thing to be the law, and in their legislative capacity declared another thiufT to be the law : and this was the chano-eful and self-contradictory oracle on whose authority a great national religious establishment was overthrown ! It The House of is, indeed, quite true, that Lord Aberdeen's lesfisla- thus^'niake"'^ tlvc interpretation of the law — though different from "recoXa"' Lord Cottenham's judicial interpretation of it — was diet tlieir .,, . , -, i i i • judicial ti^- still stringent and narrow enouQ-h to exclude the prin- timoiiy as to O _ "-^ _ J- kwL!''^ ciple of non-intrusion. But this does not alter the fact, that the veto-law of the church was, in 1839, pronounced to be illegal by the house of lords, upon a view of the law which the same house of lords, in 1843, declared to have been erroneous. In addition to this bill of Lord Aberdeen, in refer- ence to the settlement of ministers, another was brought forward by Sir James Graham, in regard to the subdivision of parishes and the endowment of quoad sacra churches. The former bill was passed in the course of the session of 1843; the latter during the session of 1844. Sir James Graham's bill did Sir James nothiuff wliatcvcr to restore the powers wdiich the Giahanis ^ ■!■ cimrdfand Stcwai'tou dccisiou had taken from the establishment. emowmcu j^ j^|.^ ^^^ quoad sacva church ministers excluded from the ecclesiastical courts, — their sessions broken up, — and their right to take any part in the government of the church utterly extinguished. Without an endow- THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. g23 ment of <£120 a year, and the consent of a majority chap. xv. of the heritors of the parish, and of the court of ^|,^,^f jj'jt tiends, the estabhshment cannot now set up, even in Estabii'if- the most destitute district of the land, a full provision niipoitimt of the means of grace, according to the institution of d|}fcl'""' Christ, for a sinole additional confjregation. In a practical point of view this state of things may be of little moment, as the existing supply of churches in the establishment is greatly more than equal to the demand. When, however, the matter is considered in the light of the responsibilities, duties and preroga- tives of a church of Christ, it assumes a very different character. Like the bill of Lord Aberdeen, that of Sir James Graham confirms and ratifies, in matters the most purely ecclesiastical and spiritual, the supre- macy of the courts of law; and binds round the neck '^^|^^^*''^°J""' of the establishment those galling and degrading fetters diluu"^ which the church of Scotland, on the day of the dis- arouShe ruption, indignantly cast away. ment'sneck. In turning from the assembly of the bond establish- ment, it now only remains to the reader to take a parting glance at the assembly of the free church of Scotland. Its sittings, which commenced on Thurs- day the 18th, were concluded on Tuesday the 30th of May; and during that period all the necessary The Free measures for organizing the adherents, developing the resources, maturing the plans, and conducting the affairs of the disestablished church, were arranged with a promptitude, an energy, and a unanimity, that filled the friends of this great movement with confidence, gratitude, and joy. Of the many interesting scenes that were witnessed in this assembly, none was more ^24 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. cnAP.xv. impressive or memorable than that of the signing of The deed tho deed of demission. On Tuesday the 23d of May, of denus- •' •' ' """■ this deed, prepared according to the strictest forms of law, was laid on the table of the house. After repeat- ing the substance of the protest, it proceeded thus: — " And further, the said ministers and elders, in this their general assembly convened, while they refuse to acknowledge the supreme ecclesiastical judicatory, established by law in Scotland, and now holding its sittings in Edinburgh, to be a free assembly of the church of Scotland, or a lawful assembly of the said church, according to the true and original constitu- tion thereof, and disclaims its authority as to matters spiritual, yet in respect of the recognition given to it by the state, and the powers in consequence of such recognition belonging to it with reference to the temporalities of the establishment, and the rights derived thereto from the state, hereby appoint a duplicate of this act, to be subscribed by their moderator, and also by the several ministers, members of this assembly, now present in Edinburgh, for their individual interests, to be transmitted to the clerk of the said ecclesiastical judicatory, by law established, for the purpose of certiorating them, that the benefices held by such of the said ministers, or others, adhering to this assembly, as were incumbents of benefices, are now vacant, and the said parties consent that the said benefices shall be dealt with as such. And they authorize the Rev. Thomas Pitcairn, and the Rev. Patrick Clason, conjunct clerks to this their general assembly, to subscribe the joinings of the several sheets hereof; and they consent to the registration THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Q25 hereof In the books of councils and session, or others chap.xv. competent therein to remain for preservation/' &c., — all duly attested in terms of law. One after another, as their names were called, the jDrotesting ministers advanced to the table, and affixed, ^oAbedeel with an unfaltering hand, their names to a deed by sion!""^" which they renounced their earthly all. The first signature after the name of the illustrious moderator, was that of the venerable Dr. Muirhead of Cramond, who was ordained in the year 1788. From Robert- sonian moderatism to Chalmers and the Free church, — his ministry had reached from the one to the other, — and the youngest of his brethren did not march forth from the dishonoured and enslaved establishment more resolutely than he. Onwards, from noon till late in the evening, did the signing of this document incessantly proceed. Including a few who afterwards 2'ave in their adherence to this deed, 474 ministers ihe number completed, by means of this solemn legal instrument, their separation from the establishment. " I was yesterday present," said an onlooker,""- writing to the moderator on the following day, ''at the stirring and movinjy scene, when above four hundred of the best ministers in the land cheerfully came forward to sacrifice all that was dear to them in this world, on the altar of conscience and duty. I will say nothing Testimony of . , - . , , . an onlooker of the sentiments of sympathy, mingled with admira- ^po];^\i'« tion, with which I witnessed this noble stand for Christian principle, — not counting the cost, — and beyond all Greek, beyond all Roman fame, but shall * James Ewin^% Estj. of Strathloven. 2r Q26 "T^^ ™N YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. at oiicc beg jou to tliFOw mj mite into the treasury, wliicli, I trust, tlie country will rush forward to supply, and to subscribe my name for two thousand pounds, to be applied in such manner as you may yourself deem proper, and the money shall be at your com- mand whenever it is required." ^"mem? Evcu boforo the disruption had yet taken place. Church."'^ the generous sentiment, thus seasonably and nobly expressed, had been already extensively and power- fully at work. Though statesmen in London, and politicians nearer home, continued to the last hour incredulous of the approaching event ; there were thousands, and tens of thousands, throughout the parishes of Scotland upon whom it did not come unawares. Before the 18th of May had yet arrived, 687 sejDarate associations had been formed for the purpose of raising funds and making other neces- sary preparations to meet the expected wants of the church. On the first business-day of the Free Assem- bly it was the j^rivilege of Dr. Chalmers — when giving in the report of the committee which had guided these precursory movements — to make this cheering an- nouncement, that " as the result of about two months' appliance to the country, there has been tendered '^oun"; ^^^ aggregate sum of £232,347 for the support Serf.«'ai. of the Free church of Scotland." The data, it ready sub- . l • i • scribed. IS true, on which this statement was made, owing to the unavoidably imperfect state of the returns, were partly conjectural. The calculations, however, were amply justified by the fiicts, — for when the twelvemonths which these calculations embraced had run their course, it was found that the first year's income THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 627 of the Free churcli, Instead of stopping at tlie amount chap^v. named by Dr. Chalmers, had swelled up to the truly ^tlon^ex-'" munificent sum of £366,719 14s. 3d. * This cannot the result. last,' — was the confident and not unnatural prediction of those to whom, only a year before, it had seemed too much to believe that any disruption would ever take place. It has since, however, been abundantly proved, that the sources of supply had not been drained by the first demand. What then appeared, to men of little faith, to be the produce of one exhausting and convulsive effort, has been repeated again, and again, and again, — till the funds of the Free church have begun to assume not a little of the regularity and steadiness of a national revenue. During the five years which elapsed between the assembly of 1843 and the assembly of 1848, the aororerjate sum raised for the church's home and Amount OO O raised for foreign wants was £1,590,064 3s. 4jd.; being an "-^^^^^'^T average of fully £300,000 per annum. fweenVe^' rm • 11 11 11 date of the These amazino- results have not only shamed the Disruption O •' and tlie shallow and confident scej^ticism of the church's worldly- i^^^^^ °^ wise opponents, — but they have rebuked not a few of her timid and too distrustful friends. What, said many such, is to become of our schools and our missionaries when the endowments of the establishment are left behind, and when all that can be provided, will be greatly too little to maintain divine ordinances among our own people ! And yet the church did not shrink from any part of the work which her Lord and Master had laid to her hand. She knew of all her missionaries within reach, that they had made up their minds to cast in their lot with the disinherited church of their fathers. 628 THE TEN YEARS CONFLICT. Chap. XV. — aiid she felt the strongest assurance, that those of Adherence of them who werc far away in heathen lands had but to the mission- •' rN i i • ''"''■ learn what Imd been done ni Scotland, m order to declare, as they did subsequently declare, with one voice, upon her side. Already, therefore, she re- garded them as her own; and though spoiled and stripped bare herself of her ancient national pro- vision, and cast out like a houseless wanderer upon her native hills, she remembered Him whose name is Jehovah-jireh; — she knew the Lord would provide. ''When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes," said Christ to His disciples of old, ''lacked ye anything? And they said nothing. "^'' He who so spake is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, — and wherefore should His servants fear ! The silver and the gold are His, — the cattle also on a thousand hills. "I cannot help," said Mr. Dunlop when submitting to the Free assembly, in 1843, his usual financial report of the church's mission and education schemes, — " referring to the state of matters ten years ago. Then there were only two or three schemes in opera- tion, and the whole sum collected amounted to £4857. And without either includino- the legacies I have stated as bequeathed to these schemes, or the sum contributed to defray the debt of the church, or the sum collected under the queen's letter, they had state of "'c this year bordering on £26,000. " They had that sum, nrat the — but every shilling of it was either already expended Disruption, or left bcliiud in the coffers of the forsaken establish- ment. That had been their missionary revenue in * Luke xxVu 35. THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. (J29 the year gone by, — but what revenue were they to chap.xv. have in the year to come ! A comparison exactly corresponding to that which was instituted by Mr. Dunlop in 1843 cannot as yet be made. His measur- in^^^^^\" common object and of a common feeling to cement ''iyo"843. and knit together the hearts of men, — the very emu- lation to love and to good works which has given birth to so many associations, each striving to outrun the other in their generous contributions for the sup- port of what is deemed by all to be a noble cause, — even the working of these associations in which the rich and the poor are often made to change places, the g30 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. Chap. XV. former visiting the homes of the latter, and receiving the offerings of christian benevolence at their hands, — the multiplied occasions of intercourse thus opened up between those parties in the commonwealth which before stood at the greatest distance, and were wont to look with the indifference, if not the coldness of aliens, on each other, — these are so many sweetening and exalting influences which serve to foster the sym- pathy of a felt brotherhood, among thousands and tens of thousands of our countrymen, and will mightily tend, we are persuaded, to elevate and humanize the society of Scotland." Sustained and strengthened ^thFv^le^ by these, the affectionate sympathies of her own tilrnumber pcoplc, aud by the blessing of her great King and ters. Head, the Free church has already gone up and pos- sessed much of the land. The 474 ministers who left the establishment in 1843, are now increased to 700. These ministers are distributed over a nearly equal number of settled pastoral charges, — besides which, there are upwards of a hundred other congregations served by licentiates of the church, and by such other suitable christian agencies as the church can supply. Her ministrations extend to every district, and nearly to every parish in the land, from the Solway to the Shetland Isles, and to the furthest Hebrides, — and there are whole islands and even large counties in Scotland, where hardly any other church is named or known. From seven to eight ofher hundred churches have sprung up to accommodate alldscS ^^^^' congregations. Manses, or parsonages for her ministers, are fast multiplying beside them. Her schools already equal, if they do not exceed, in THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 631 respect of tlie number of children educated within chap^xv. them, the entire body of the parish schools of Scot- °dl\"o"' hind. She has not fewer than two hundred and fifty anaiefcQ-a . . „ , . . , training for students or theology trainuig for her ministry, — and iier seiioou. in her normal schools she is making a corresponding provision to train teachers for the young. Nor are her efforts confined within her native fields. Her missionaries are found following after the lost sheep of the house of Israel in various lands, and showing light to the Gentiles in dark places of the earth which are full of the habitations of cruelty: while ministers, professors, and schoolmasters, sent forth under her auspices, may be found in almost every colony of the British crown. It is yet too soon to write the history of the dis- \°eVto"ATi'te established church of Scotland; the author has neither ofVeli'J-'' . established time nor room even to sketch it here. The causes, and Church. not the consequences of the disruption, constitute the proper subject of his present work. When those issues which divine providence had wrapped up in the once lit- tle seed out of which the disruption grew, shall have had time and scope to come forth into fuller development, — and when their bearing shall be seen on those move- ments, which in other churches seem to be already heav- ing towards the birth of events, in which all Christendom may come ere long to share, — there will be much to record which it will concern the wise both to read and learn. Meanwhile, amid the busy actors and hurrying ^fet^fJtro^f incidents that now crowd the sounding stage both of ciu.rcrof the ecclesiastical and of the political world, let it be the high and constant aim of the Free Church of Scot- land to make full proof of her ministry, — to do the g32 THE TEN YEARS' CONFLICT. work of an evangelist, — to hold fast her testimony, — and then shall no man be able to take her crown. Living to Him, — by Whom she lives, — the legend written from of old upon her shining shield, shall still be verified: — nec tamen consumebatur, — the bush, though burning, shall not be consumed. [APPENDIX. APPENDIX No. I. CLAIM, DECLARATION', AND PROTEST, BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SC0TL.4ND. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, taking into consideration the solemn circumstances in which, in the inscrutable iJrovidence of God, tiiis Church is now placed, and that, notwithstanding the securities for the govern- ment thereof by .general assemblies, synods, presbyteries, and kirk-sessions, and for the liberties, government, jurisdiction, discipline, rights, and privileges of the same, provided by the statutes of the realm, by the constitution of this country, as unalterably settled bv the Treaty of Union, and by the oath " in- violably to maintain and preserve the same," required to be taken by each sovereign at accession, as a condition precedent to the exercise of the royal authority — which securities might well seem, and had long been thought, to place the said liberties, government, jurisdiction, discipline, rights, and privi- leges of this Church beyond the reach of danger or invasion — these have been of late assailed by the very courts to which the Church was authorized to look for assistance and protection, to an extent that threatens their entire subver- sion, with all the grievous calamities to this Church and nation which would inevitably flow therefrom, did, and hereby do, solemnly and in reliance on the grace and power of the j\Iost High, resolve and agree on the following Claim, •eclaration, and Protest: That is to say: — Whereas it is an essential doctrine of this Church, and a fundamental prin- ciple in its constitution, as set forth in the Confession of Faith thereof, in accordance with the word and law of the most holy God, that " there is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ;"* and that while " God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be, imder him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good, and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword ;"t and while "it is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey tlieir lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority for conscience sake,"| " from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted;'' and while the magistrate hath authority, and it is his duty, in the exercise of that power which alone is committed to him, namely, the "power of the sword," or civil rule, as distinct from the " power of the keys " or spiri- tual authority, expressly denied to him, to take order for the preservation of ])urity, peace, and unity in the Church, yet " The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in tiie hand of Cliurch officers distinct from the civil magistrate :"§ which government is ministerial, not lordk, and to be exercised in consonance witii the laws of Christ, and with the liberties of his people : ♦ Ch. 25, sec. 6. t Ch. 23, sec. 1. t Chap. 23, sec. 4. ^ Ch. 30, sec. 1. II. 2 s go 4 APPENDIX. And whereas, according to the said Confession, and to the other standards of the Church, and agreeably to the Word of God, this government of the Church, thus appointed by the Lord Jesus, in the hand of Church otficers, dis- tinct from the civil magistrate, or supreme power of the State, and flowing directly from the Head of the Church to the oflice-bearers thereof, to the exclu- sion of the civil magistrate, comprehends, as the objects of it, the preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, correction of manners, the admis- sion of the office-bearers of the Church to their offices, their suspension and deprivation therefrom, the infliction and removal of Church censures, and, generally, the whole " power of the keys," which, by the said Confession, is declared, in conformity -with Scripture, to have been " committed "* to Church otticers, and which, as well as the preaching of the Word, and the administra- tion of the sacraments, it is likewise thereby declared, that "the civil magis- trate may not assume to himself :"t And -whereas this jurisdiction and government, since it regards only spiritual condition, rights, and privileges, doth not interfere with the jurisdiction of secu- lar tribunals, whose determinations as to all temporalities conferred by the State upon the Church, and as to all civil consequences attached by law to the deci- sions of Church courts in matters spiritual, this Church hath ever admitted, and doth admit, to be exclusive and ultimate, as she hath ever given and inculcated implicit obedience thereto : And whereas the above mentioned essential doctrine and fundamental principle in the constitution of the Church, and the government and exclusive jurisdiction flowing therefrom, founded on God's Word, and set forth in the Confession of Faith and other standards of this Church, have been, by diverse and repeated acts of Parliament, recognised, ratified, and confirmed ; — inasmuch as. — First, The said Confession itself, containing the doctrine and principles above set forth, was " ratified and established, and voted and approven as the public and avowed Confession of this Church," by the fifth actj of the second session of the first Parliament of King William and Queen Mary, entituled, " Act ratifying the Confession of Faith, and settling Presbyterian Church Government:" — to which act the said Confession is annexed, and with it incorporated in the statute law of this kingdom. Second, By an actg passed in the first Parliament of King James VL, entituled, " Of admission of nnnisters : of laic patronages," it is enacted and declared, " That the examination and admission of ministers within this realm be only in the power of the Kirk, now openly and publicly professed within the same;" and, while the "presentation of laic patronages " was thereby " rcsei-ved to the just and ancient patrons," it was provided, that if the presentee of a patron should be refused to be admitted by tlie inferior eccle- siastical authorities, it should be lawful for the patron "to appeal to the General Assembly of the whole realm, by whom the cause being decided, shall take end as they decern and declare." Third, By an act|| passed in the same first Parliament, and renewed in the sixth Parliament of the said King James VI. , entituled, " Anent the jurisdiction of the Kirk," the said Kirk is declared to have jurisdic- tion "in tlie preaching of the true Word of Jesus Christ, correction of manners, and administration of the holy sacraments;"^ and it is further declared, "that there be no other jurisdiction ecclesiastical acknowledged •Ch.30,sec.2. t Cli.'.'3,sec.3. tlG90,c.5. ^]567,c.7. II 1567,c. 12,(fol. edit.) f 1579,c.9. APPENDIX. 635 within tills realm, "other than that ivhich is and shall be withm the same Kirk, or that flows therefrom, concerning the premises;'^ which act, and that last before mentioned, were ratified and approven by another act* passed in the year 1581 , entituled, " Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk of God and relifjion, with confirmation of the laws and acts made to that effect of before ;'' which other act, and all the separate acts therein recited, were again revived, ratified, and confirmed, by an actl of the twelfth Parliament of the said King James VI., entituled, " Ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk," &c.; which said act (having been repealed in 1GG2) was revived, renewed, and confirmed, J by the before mentioned statute of King William and Queen Mary. Fourth, The said act of the twelfth Parliament of King James VI. ratified and approved the general assemblies, pi-ovincial synods, presbyteries, and kirk-sessions, "appointed by the Kirk," and " the whole jurisdiction and discipline of the same Kirk;"§ casscd and annulled " all and whatsoever acts, laws, and statutes, made at any time before the day and date thereof, against the liberty of the true Kirk, jurisdiction and discipline thereof, as the same is used and exercised within this realm;" appointed presentations to benefices to be directed to presbyteries, " with full power to give collation thereupon, and to put order to all matters and causes ecclesiastical within their bounds, according to the discipline of the Kirk, providing the foresaid presbyteries be bound and astricted to receive and admit whatsoever qualified minister, pre- sented by his majesty or laic patrons," (the effect of which proviso and of the reservation in the act|| of the first Parliament of King James VI., above mentioned, is hereinafter more fully adverted to;) and farther decla-ed that the jurisdiction of the Sovereign and his courts, as set forth in a previous act^ to extend over all persons his subjects, and " in all matters," should "noways be prejudicial nor derogate any thing to the privilege that God has given to the spiritual office-bearers of the Kirk, concerning heads of religion, matters of heresy, excommunication, collation, or deprivation of ministers, or any such like essential censures, grounded and having warrant of the Word of God ; by which enactment, declaration, and acknowledgment, the State recognised and established as a fundamental principle of the constitution of the kingdom, that the jurisdiction of the Church In these matters was " given by God " to the office-bearers thereof, and was exclusive and free from coercion by any tribunals holding power or authority from the State or supreme civil magistrate. Fifth, The Parliament holden by King Charles II., immediately on his restoration to the throne, while it repealed the above recited act* * of the twelfth Parliament of King James and other relative acts,!! at the same time acknowledged the supreme and exclusive nature of the jurisdiction thereby recognised to be in the Church, describing the said acts, as acts " by which the sole and only power and jurisdiction within this Church doth stand in the Church, and in the general, provincial, and presbyterial assemblies, and kirk-sessions,'' and as acts "which maybe interpreted to have given any {'hurch power, jurisdiction, or government to the office-bearers of the Church, their respective meetings, other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence upon, and subordination to the sovereign power of the king, as supreme." Sixth, The aforesaid actn of King William and (Jueen Mary, — on the narra- tive that their majesties and the estates of Parliament conceived " it to be their bounden duty, after the great deliverance that God hath lately wrought for ♦ 1581, c. 99. t l.'i92, c. 1 Ifi. J 1000, c. 5. (, 1502, c 1 10. || 1507, c. 7. U 15S4, c. 120. •• l(iii2, c. 1. tt 1592, c. IIG. tX 1000, c. 5. 2 s 2 636 APPENDIX. this Church and kinwa?. " Thus: — First, The General Assembly having, in the year 1582, proceeded to inflict the censures of the Church upon Robert Montgomery, minister of Stirling, for seeking to force himself, under a presentation from the king, into the archbishopric of Glasgow, contrary to an act of the General Assembly dis- charging the oflice of Prelatic bisliop in the CImrch, and for appealing to the secular tribunals against the infliction of Church censures by the Church coiu-ts, and seeking to have these suspended and interdicted, — and having de{)Osed and excommunicated him, notwithstanding of an interdict pronounced by the privy council of Scotland, the then supreme secular court of the king- dom,— and having at the same time declared it to he part of the subsisting discipline of the Chcrch, that any ministers thereof who " should seek any way by the civil power to exempt and withdraw themselves from the jurisdic- tion of the Kirk, or procure, obtain or use any letters or charges, (fee, or to make any ai)pellation from the General Assembly to stop the discipline or order of the ecclesiastical policy or jurisdiction granted by God's Word to the ofticc-bearers witliin the said Kirk," were liable to the highest censures of the Church; — although their sentence of excommunication was declared by one of the acts of Parliament of the year 158-4, commonly called the " Black Acts," to be void, yet ultimately the king and privy council abandoned their interference. Montgomery submitted to the Church courts, and the statutef of the twelfth Parliament of King James VI., already mentioned, cassed and * 1502, c. 116. t 1592, c. 116. APPENDIX. 637 anmilled " all and whatever acts, laws, and statutes made at any time before the day and date thereof, ao'ainst the liberty of the true Kirk, jurisdiction and discipline thereof, as the same is used and exercised within this realme;" since which enactment no similar interference with the discipline and censures of the Church was ever attempted till the year 1841 . Second, It havino; been declared by another of the " Black Acts" afore- said,* entituled, " An act confirming the kind's majesty's royal power over all the estates and subjects within tliis realm, ' that "his highness, his heirs and successors, by themselves and their councils, are, and in tiaie to come, shall be judges competent to all persons his highness' subjects, of whatsoever estate, degree, function, or condition that ever they be of, sjjiritual or temporal, in all matters wherein they or any of them shall be apprehended, summoned, or charged to answer to such things as shall be inquired of them by our sove- reign lot-d and his council,'' it was, bv the said before mentioned act of the twelfth Parliament of King James VI,, declared that the said actf last above mentioned " shall noways be preiudicial, nor derogate any thing to the privilege that God has given to the 'spiritual office-bearers of the Kirk, con- cerning heads of religion, matters of heresy, excommunication, collation, or deprivation of minis'ters, or any such like essential censures, specially grounded, and having warrant of the Word of God " _ Third, It having been enacted, | on the establishment of Prelacy m 1612, that every minister, at his admission, should swear obedience to the sovereign, as " the only lawful supreme governor of this realm, as well in matters spiri- tual and ecclesiastical as in things temporal," the enactment to this etfect was repealed on the restoration of Presbyterian Church government. § Fourth, A like acknowledgment, that the sovereign was " the only supreme governor of this kingdom over all persons, atid in all causes," having been, on the second establishment of Prelacy, |1 consequent on the restoration of KinfT Charles II., required as part of the ordinary oath of allegiance, and having been also inserted into the " Test Oath,''<[ so tyrannically attempted to be forced on the subjects of this realm dui-ing the reigns of Charles II. and James II.; and the same doctrine of the king's supremacy in all causes, spiritual and ecclesiastical as well as temporal and civil, having farther been separately and specially declared by the first act** of the second Parliament of the saitl King Charles II., entituled, "Act asserting his majesty's supre- macy over all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical," whereby it was " enacted, asserted, and declared, that his majesty hath the supreme autho- rity and supremacv over all persons, and in all causes ecclesiastical, within this kingdom," the Estates of this kingdom, ft at the era of the Revolution, did set "forth, as the second article of the "Grievances" of which they demanded redress under their "Claim of Right," " That the first act of. Parliament 1GG9 is inconsistent with the establishment ot the Church govern- ment now desired, and ought to be abrogated." ,. , , c Fifth, In compliance with this claim, an actti was immediately thereatter passed, of whicli the tenor follows: "Our sovereign lord and lady the king and queen's majesties, taking into their consideration, that by the second article of the Grievances presented to their majesties by the estates of this kinfrdom, it is declared that the first act of the second Parliament of King Charles the Second, entituled, ' Act asserting his majesty's suiiremacy over all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical,' is inconsistent with the establish- ment of the Church government now desired, and ought to be abrogate : M584, c. 129. t 1-92, c. lr,6. t 1012. c. 1. U40, c. 7. II 16G1, e. 11. •I 1G81, c. 6. ** 1609, C.9. tt Estates. 1689, c. 18. t{ 1690, c. 1. g38 APPENDIX. Therefore their majesties, with advice and consent of the estates of Parlia- ment, do hereby abrogate, rescind, and annul the foresaid act, and declares the same in the^ whole heads, articles, and clauses thereof, to be of no force or effect in all time coming." In accordance also therewith, the oath of allegiance above mentioned, requiring an acknowledgment of the king's sove- reignty " in all causes," was done away,* and that substituted which is now in use, simply requiring a promise to be " faithful, and bear true allegiance" to the sovereign; and all preceding laws and acts of Parliament were rescinded, "in so far as they impose any other oaths of allegiance and siipremacy, declarations and tests, excepting the oath de ficleli." By the which enact- ments, any claim on the part of the sovereigns of Scotland to be supreme rulers in spiritual and ecclesiastical as well as in temporal and civil causes, or to possess any power, by themselves or their judges holding commission from them, to exercise jurisdiction in matters or causes spiritual and eccle- siastical, was repudiated and excluded from the constitution, as inconsistent with the Presbyterian Church government then established, and secured under the statutes theu and subsequently passed, " to continue without any altera- tion, to the people of this land, in all succeeding generations. ''f And wuereas diverse civil rights and privileges were, by various statutes of the Parliament of Scotland, prior to the Union with England, secured to this Church, and certain civil consequences attached to the sentences of the courts thereof, which were farther directed to be aided and made effectual by all magistrates, judges, and officers of the law; and in particular: — It was, by an actj of the twelfth Parliament of King James VI., enacted, " that all and whatsoever sentences of deprivation, either pronounced already, or that happens to be pronounced hereafter by any presbytery, synodal, or general assemblies, against any parson or vicar within their jurisdiction, provided since his highness' coronation, is, and shall be repute in all judg- ments, a just cause to seclude the person before provided, and then deprived from all profits, commodities, rents, and duties of the said parsonage and vicarage, or benefice of cure ; and that, either by way of action, exception, or reply; and that the said sentence of deprivation shall be a sufficient cause to make the said benefice to vaike thereby :" As also, by the fifth act§ of the first Parliament of King William and Queen Mary, it was enacted, " that whatsoever minister being convened before the said general meeting, and representatives of the Presbyterian ministers or elders, or the visitors to be appointed by them, shall either prove contumacious for not appearing, or be found guilty, and shall be therefore censured, whether by suspension or deposition, they shall, ipso facto, be suspended from or dejirived of their stipends and benefices:" As also, by an act|| passed in the fourth session of the first Parliament of King William and Queen Mary, entituled, an " Act for settling the peace and quiet of tlie Church," it was provided, that no minister should be admitted, unless he owned t\u) Presbyterian Church government, as settled by the last recited act, " to be the only government of this Church ;" " and that he will submit thereto, and concur therewith, and never endeavour, directly or in- directly, the prejudice or subversion thereof;" and it was statute or ordained, " that the lords of their majesty's privy council, and all other magistrates, judges, and officers of justice, give all due assistance for making the sentences and censures of the Church, and judicatories thereof, to be obeyed, or other- wise effectual, as accords :" • 10S'.>, c. 2. t 1700, c. 6. 1.592, c. 117. k 1690, c. o. || I0i);5, c. 22. APPENDIX. g39 As also, Ly an act* passed in the fifth session of the foresaid Parliament, entituled an " Act against intruding- into churches without a legal call and admission thereto," on the narrative, "that ministers and preachers, their intruding themselves into vacant churches, possessing of manses and benefices, and exercising any part of the ministerial function in parishes, without a legal call and admission to the said churches, is an high contempt of the law, and of a dangerous consequence, tending to perpetual schism;'' such intrusion, without an orderly call from the heritors and elders — the right of presentation by patrons being at this time abolished, — and " legal admission from the presbytery," was prohibited under certain penalties; and the lords of the privy council were recommended to remove all who had so intruded, and " to take some effectual course for stopping and hindering those ministers who are, or shall be hereafter deposed by the judicatories of the present established Church, from preaching or exercising any act of their ministerial function which " (the said statute declares) "they cannot do after they are deposed, without a high contempt of the authority of the Church, and of the laws of the kingdom establishing the same." And whereas, at the union between the two kingdoms, the Parliament of Scotland, being determined that the "true Protestant religion," as then pro- fessed, "with the worship, discipline and government of this Church, should be effectually and unalterably secured," did, in their actf appointing commissioners to treat with commissioners from the Parliament of England, as to an union of the kingdoms, provide, " That the said commissioners shall not treat of or con- cerning any alteration of the worship, discijiline and government of the Church of this kingdom, as now by law established;" and did, by another act, J com- monl}^ called the Act of Security, and entituled, " Act for securing the Protes- tant religion and Presbyterian Church government," "establish and confirm the said true Protestant religion, and the worship, discipline and government of this Church, to continue without any alteration to the people of this land in all succeeding generations;" and did " for ever confirm the fifth actg of the first Parliament of King William and Queen Mary, entituled, ' Act ratifying the Confession of Faith, and settling Presbyterian Church government,' and the whole other acts of Farliament relating thereto ;" and did " expressly provide and declare. That the foresaid true Protestant religion, contained in the above mentioned Confession of Faith, with the form and purity of worship presently in use within this Church, and its Presbyterian Church government and disci- pline,— that is to say, the government of the Church by kirk-sessions, presby- teries, provincial synods, and general assemblies, all established by the foresaid acts of Parliament, pui'suant to the Claim of Right, shall remain and continue unalterable; and that the said Presbyterian government shall be the only govern- ment of the Church within the kingdom of Scotland;" and farther, "for the greater security of the same, " did, "inter alia, enact, "That after the decease of her pre- sent majesty, the sovereign succeeding to her in the royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain, shall, in all time coming, at his or her succession to the Crown, swear and subscribe, That they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the true Protestant religion, with the government, wor- ship, discipline, right and privileges of this Church, as above established by the laws of this kingdom, in prosecution of the Claim of Right;" which said Act of Security, " with the establishment therein contained," it was specially thereby enacted, " should be held and observed in all time coming, as a fundamental • IG'.to, c. 22. t 1705, p. 4. : 1700, o. (',. ^ 1690, c. 5. g40 APPENDIX. and essential condition of any treaty or union to be concluded betwixt the two kingdoms, without any alteration thereof, or derogation thereto, in any swt for ever:'' It being farther thereby provided, that "the said act and settlement therein contained shall be insert and repeated in any act of Parliament that shall pass, for agreeing and concluding the foresaid treaty or union betwixt the two kingdoms; and tliat the same shall be therein expressly declai-ed to be a fundamental and essential condition of the said treaty or union in all time com- ing." In terms of which enactment, this Act of Security was inserted in the Treaty of Union between the two kingdoms, as a fundamental condition thereof, and was also inserted in the act* of the Parliament of Scotland ratifying and approving of the said Treaty, and likewise in the corres])onding actf of the Parhament of England, entituled, " An act for a union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland:" And whereas, at the date of the said Treaty of Union, the right of patrons to present to churches stood abolished by statute, after the following manner, viz.: By the act| of King William and Queen Mary, herein before mentioned, the act§ of James VI., also herein before mentioned, then standing totally repealed, was only revived, subject to the express exception of " that part of it relating to patronages," which consequently remained repealed and unrestored, and " which," the act 1690, c. 5, farther bore, " is hereafter to be taken into consideration.'' The part of the said act thus left repealed and unrevived, was the provision, that presbyteries "be bound and astricted to receive whatsoever qualified minister presented by his majesty or laic patrons," — a provision which, whileit subsisted, was held to leave the Church free to proceed in the collation of ministers " according to the discipline of the Kirk ;" and non-compliance with which implied only a forfeiture of the fruits of the particular benefice, which it did by virtue of the immediately succeeding statute, |] whereby it was enacted, that "in case the presbytery refuses to admit any qualified minister presented to them by the patron, it shall be lawful to the patron to retain the whole fruits of the benefice in his own hands." This subject having accordingly been thereafter taken into consideration in the same session of Parliament, was definitely settled by an act, ^ entituled, "Act concerning patronages," whereby the right of presentation by patrons was " annulled and made void," and a right was vested in the heritors and elders of the respective parishes " to name and propose the person to the whole congregation, to be approven or disappro- ven by them," the disapprovers giving in their reasons "to the etfect the afiair maybe cognosced upon by the presbytery of the bounds, at whose judgment and by whose determination " (as is declared' by the said act), " the calling and entry of a particular minister is to be ordered and concluded:" And whereas the said act last mentioned, formed part of the settlement of the Presbyterian Church government effected at the Revolution, and was one of the "acts relating thereto," and to the statute 1690, c. 6, specially con- firmed and secured hy the Act of Security and Treaty of Union; yet, notwith- standing thereof, and of the said Treaty, the Parliament of Great Britain, bv an act** i)assed in the 10th of Queen Anne, repealed the said act, " in so fara's relates to the presentation of ministers by heritors and others therein men- tioned," and restored to patrons the right of presentation, and enacted that presbyteries should be " obliged to receive and admit in the same manner, such * 1700, 0. 7. t o Anne, c. 8. * 1000, c. 5. ^ 1592, c. 116. || 1592, c. 117. % 1690, c. 23. ** 10 Anne, c. 12. APPENDIX. (54 X qiialifiod person or persons, minister or ministers, as shall be presented by the respective patrons, as the persons or ministers presented before the making of this act ought to have been admitted :" And whereas, while this Church protested against the ])assing of the above mentioned act of Queen Anne, as " contrary to the constitution of the Church, so well secured by the late Treaty of Union, and solemnly ratified by acts of I'arliament in both kingdoms," and for moie than seventy years thereafter, nninterru])tedly sought for its repeal, she at the same time maintained, and practically exercised, without question or challenge from any quarter, the juris- diction of her courts to determine ultimately and exclusively, under what circumstances they would admit candidates into the office of the holy ministry, or constitute the pastoral relationship between minister and people, and, gene- rally, " to order and conclude the entry of particular ministers :" And -whereas, in particular, this Church required, as necessary to the ad- mission of a minister to the charge of souls, that he should have i-eceived a call from the people over whom he was to be appointed, and did not authorize or permit any one so to be admitted till such call had been sustained by the Church courts, and did, before and subsequent to the passing of the said act of Queen Anne, declare it to be a fundamental principle of tlie Church, as set iorth in her authorized standards, and particularly in the Second Book of Dis- cipline,* repeated by act of Assembly in 1G38, that no pastor be intruded upon any congregation contrary to the will of the people : And whereas, in especial, this fundamental principle was, by the 14th act of the General Assembly 1730, f re-declared, and directed to be attended to in the settlement of vacant parishes, but having been, after sometime, disregarded in the administration of the Church, it was once more re-declared by the General Assembly 1834, J who established certain specific provisions and regu- lations for cari-ying it into effect in time to come : And whereas, by a judgment pronounced by the House of Lords, in 1839, § it was, for the first time, declared to be illegal to refuse to take on trial, and to reject the presentee of a patron (although a layman, and merely a candidate for admission to the office of the ministry), in consideration of this fundamental principle of the Church, and in respect of the dissent of the congregation; to the authority of which judgment, so far as disposing of civil interests, this Church implicitly bowed, by at once abandoning all claim to the jus devolutum, — to the benefice, for any pastor to be settled by her, and to all other civil right or privilege which might otherwise have been competent to the Church or her courts; and anxiously desirous, at the same time, of avoiding colhsion with the civil courts, she so far suspended the operation of the above-mentioned act of Assembly, as to direct all cases, in which dissents should be lodged by a majo- rity of the congregation, to be reported to the General Assembly, in the hope that a way might be opened up to her for reconciling with the civil rights de- clared by the llouse of Lords, adherence to the above-mentioned fundamental principle, which she could not violate or abandon by admitting to the holy oflSce of the ministry, a party not having, in her conscientious judgment, a legi- timate call thereto, or by intruding a pastor on a reclaiming congregation con- trary to their will; and farther, addressed herself to the Government and the » Ch. 3, sec. 5. t Act of Assembly, 1736, o. 14. j Act of Assembly. 1834, c. 9, 4 Auchtor.irilor Case, l»ciy. 642 APPENDIX, Legislature for such an alteration of the law (as for the first time now inter- preted), touching the temporalities belonging to the Church (which alone she held the decision of the House of Lords to be capable of aifecting or regulating), as might prevent a separation between the cure of souls and the benefice thereto attached : And -whereas, although during the century which elapsed after the passing of the said act of Queen Anne, presbyteries repeatedly rejected the presentees of patrons on grounds undoubtedly liltra vires of the presbyteries, as having reference to the title of the patron or the validity of competing presentations, and which were held by the Court of Session to be contrary to law, and admitted others to the pastoral office in the parishes presented to, who had no presenta- tion or legal title to the benefice, the said court, even in such cases, never attempted or pretended to direct or coerce the Church courts, in the exercise of their functions in regard to the collation of ministers or other matters acknow- ledged by the State to have been conferred on the Church, not by the State, but by God himself. On the contrary, they limited their decrees to the regula- tion and disposal of the temporalities which were derived from the State, and which, as the proper subjects of " actions civil," were within the province assigned to the Court of Session by the Constitution, refusing to interfere with the peculiar functions and exclusive jurisdictiou of the courts of the Church : Thus,— In the case of Auchtermuchty,* where the presbytery had wrongfully admitted another than the patron's presentee, the court found, " That the right to a stipend is a civil right; and there/ore, that the court have power to cognosce and determine upon the legality of the admission of ministers, in hunc cfectum, whether the person admitted shall have right to the stipend or not;" and simply decided, that the patron was entitled to retain the stipend in his own hands. So also, the same com'se was followed in the cases of Culross, Lanark, and Forbes;! in reference to one of which (that of Lanark) the government of the country, on behalf of the Crown, in which the patronage was vested, recognized the retention of stipend by the patron, as the only competent remedy for a wrongful refusal to admit his presentee; the Secretary of State having, in a letter to the Lord Advocate of Scotland (January 7, 17-52), sig- nified the pleasure of his Majesty, " directing and ordering his lordship to do every thing necessary and competent by law, for asserting and taking bene- fit in the present case, of the said right and privilege of patrons by the law of Scotland, to retain the fruits of the benefice in their own hands till their presentee be admitted." So farther, in the before mentioned case of Culross, J the court refused, " as incompetent," a bill of advocation presented to them by the patron, for the jiurpose of staying the admission by the presbytery of another than his presentee. So likewise, in the case of Dunse, I the court would not interfere in regard to a conclusion to prohibit the presbytery " to moderate in a call at large or settle any other man," because " that was interfering with the power of ordi- nation or internal jiolicy of the Church, with which the Lords thought they had nothing to do." * Moncricff «;. M;ixton, Fob. 15, 1735. t Cocliran v. Stoddart, June 20, 1751. Dick v. Oarmichael, March 2, 1753. Forhes V. MacWiUiam, February, 1762. J Cocliran, November 19, 1748. I) Hay V. Presl)ytery of Duiisc, February 2P, 179. APPENDIX. 643 And so, in the same manner, in the case of Unst,* where the party con- cluded to have the presbytery ordained to proceed to the presentee's settle- ment, as well as to have the validity of the presentation and the right to the stipend declared, the court limited their decree to the civil matters of the presentation and stipend. And -whereas, pending the efforts of the Church to accomplish the desired alteration of the law, the Court of Session — a tribunal instituted Ijy special act of Parliament for the specific and limited purpose of "doing and administration of justice in all civil actio7is,"] with judges appointed simply " to sit and decide upon all actions civil," I — not confining themselves to the determination of " civil actions," — to the withholding of civil consequences from sentences of the Church courts which, in their judgment, wore not warrantei\i}i."— Spectator. SGUfHS. %A of ^BuniB ; a Senes of LANDSCAPES rendered Classical by the Writings of the Scottisli Poet, from Paintings made expressly for the Work, by D. O. Hill, B.S.A. Also, PORTRAITS of the Poet, his Friends, and Subjects of his Muse ; with Descriptions of the Scenes, and Biogi-aphical Notices, by Robert Chambers, Esq. ; and an Essay on the Genius and Character of Burns, by Professor Wilson, of Edinburgh. In 5 Divisions, cloth gilt. Us. each ; or 3 Vols. £2 I2s. 6d. ; also in Parts, 2s. each. A few copies of this work on Imperii 4to, with India proof impressions of the plates, are still on hand, price £5. nf iC itrrnni #fni3. Edited ly a. Whuelaw. TWs work contains upwards of Seven Hundred Extracts in Poetry and Prose, exhibiting specimens of neai-ly Three Hundred different Authors, and is Illustrated by Twenty- Five Illustrative Engravings, from Original "Drawngs, chiefly bv Members of the Royal Scottish Academy. In 4 Vols., elegantly boimd in clotli, price 28s.; or in 24 Parts, Is.'each. "These four beautiful duodecimos contain an extensive and valuable selection of our finest prose and poetry.'— i'cjintur^ft Lit. Gazette. ^mki%.—%m nf Sllustrintts ml W%\x^m^\ Itntsmrn, forming a com. plete Scottish Biograpliical Dictionary. By Robert Chambers, author of "The Picture of Scotland," editor of " Chambers' Journal," &c. In 4 Vols. 8vo. ErabL-llished with 24 Portraits, 52s. ; or, with 72 Portraits, in 8 Half Vols, 8s. Gd. each. " It is a standard work, and honourable to every library in which it may find a pisjc^."— Metropolitan Magazine, CJlriBtinil'H Bnillf €^nin|lllttinil ; presenting an Entile View of Divine Truth, in a Series of Meditations, or Short Practical Discourses for every Morning and Evening throughout the year. For Family and Private Reading. Bv Thirtt-One Clergymen of tlie Church of Scotland. In I Volume, super-royal 8vo, cloth, 2Is. ; or 10 Parts, 2s. each. " A work which has to do with Christian experience and prac- i " It is, hy far, the best book that we have seen, in modem time-*, x.\ce."— Watchman. for aiding ni the devotions of the closet and the family."— i>»nd:«« I Warder. Cnmmnn |^rnt[cr.— f 1r ^lltrstrflfrli ^Jntfo^^rapr-lDnnit. The Book of com. nion Prayer, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland ; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David. With Notes, compiled from the Writings of the most eminent Commentators. Illustrated by 19 Engravings, chiefly from the Old Masters. In Morocco embossed, 12s. Gd. ; Morocco gilt 13s. 6d. ; Morocco super-extra 15s.; or in 18 Nos. 6d. each. i'5liiliigiiB. — listnrt| nf tjjB IR^fntnintinn. emerald edition. The four volumes COMPLETE, sewed, 5s. 6d.; bound in cloth, 6s. This, the cheape.st and the most unique of the small re- prints, is eml)ellislied with a full-length PORTR.IIT of LUTHER in liis STUDY, and a VIEW of the FORTRESS of WARTBURG, in which Luther was confined, and where he completed Ms translation of the New Testament. i':>lllllignt jCtltjirr nnll CnlniH ; or. The True spirit of the Reformed Church. Price 6d. stitched. " It is n production of much interest, and embodies in a simple unpretending form some very profound principles in the philosophy of wclesiastical history."- W'i«ne«s. ^nnifenn. % €jXU^XM nU Bht; comprising the Natmal History, Properties, Compo- sition, Adulteration, and Uses, of the Vegetables, Animals, Fishes, Birds, &c., used as Food. By William Davidson, M.D.., M.R.C.S.E., Member of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, and lately Senior ^ Physician to tlie Glasgow Royal Infirmary, and Lectiu-er on Slateria Medica and Dietetics. Price, cloth, 4s. 'The volume is comprehensive; it includes a great deal of most son, possess an increased interest."— Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. " The descriptions are concise, comprehensive, clear, and accurate. We strongly recommend the work to our i*eaders, as one giving an immense quantity of useful information in a more concise and accessible form than is to be met with in any other book with which acquainted."- iojidon and Edinburgh Journal of Medical r igrentdeal .. flul nmttcr ; and will be of valuable aid to the student and young "•••ition.r. '— Arfin. Medical and Surgical Journal. ust-ful manual on the subject, aa well to the professional as to nprofuasional reader."— />«ftKn Medical Preis. Science. Mens, opinions, facts, and suggestions, have been selected from r< Bpcctable sources, wherever they could be found ; and by being Interwoven with the clear and judicious observations of Dr. David- Draigjlt. 1 lljStM nf 'lKl)Xnlngt( ; or, complete body of divinity; in a Scricr. Johnson, (drift's 3ill^4^^^^^'^ dE^alrnlninr ; comprehending Principles, Rules, and Tahles, in the vari- ous departments of Mathematics aud Jlechanics, useful to Students, Engineers, and Artisans in general; and inin'B 3JlwliaUit'0 pUM Sittinnnrif ; hdng a complete Note Book of Technical Terms, Rules, aud Tables, useful in the Mechanical Arts. Illustrated by Engravings of Macliinery, and nearly 200 Cuts and Diagrams on Wood. 27 Nos. 6d. each. " We do not know a more useful companion than this work [Mechanic's Calculator] would prove to all persons going out to new or thinly peopled countries." — Metropolitan Magazine. These Works separately, in cloth, Calculatob, 5s. 6d.; Dictionaky, 9s. Inrtlq's (Drntnritnl €km Iknit. Eighth Edition, bound, ss. Ingg. (^Ipj (Ettrirlt tljI^llllBril'S Wmh. with lUustratlons by D.O. hill, Esq., R.S.A. POETICAL WORKS, with Autoliiogi-aphy and Reminiscences of his Contemporaries. 6 Vols, small Svo, 3s. 6d. each. TALES and SKETCHES, including several Pieces not before pubUshed. 6 Vols, small Svo, 3s. Cd. each. Stnllf, ClnMttEl; lislnriral, nnil |^itttrrB0I}ttB ; lUustrated in a series of views fi-om Drawings by Stanfielh, R.A., Robeet.s, R.A., Harding, Prout, Leitch, Brockedon, Barnard, &c., &c. With Descriptions of the Scenes. Preceded by an Introductory Essay, developing the Recent History and Present Condition of Italy and the Itahans. By Camillo Mapei, D.D. Formerly Canon of the Cathedral of Pcnne, and Graduate of the College San Apollinare in Rome. Complete in 20 Parts, 2s. Gd. each, or 1 Vol, morocco extra, £3 13s. fid., half-morocco, £3 3s. §nSr|lllII3. — (IbjlJ iBnrkS nf fimm SHStpjltlS, with Maps and other lUustrations In 22i Parts, Is. each. jCnmrit ^Jirnnntilj ^Iritjjmttir, adapted to the impend weights and Measures, witb a Brief View of the Nature, Use, and Negotiation of Bills of Exchange. By Gavin Lawbie. Second edition. In Two Parts, bound in Roan, with Key, 3s. Or Parts I. and II., in cloth, each Is. 3d. The Key sepiu-atcly. Is. The First Part ends with the Calculation of Interest for Days, and contains what is absolutely necessary for the common business of Life. Part Second contains Decimal Rules for the CiJculation of Interest on Bank Accounts, Sec, Gain and Loss, Insurance, Stock Jobbing, Partnership, Bankruptcy, Exchange, and a Treatise on Bills. Xap nnil I^HMEtB fnr 3SrilBl : Poems on the Present State and Puturc Prospects of the Jews. Original and Selected. With an Introductory Essay by the Rev. John Anderson, Helensburgh. Elegantly bound in Cloth, gilt edges, with Frontispiece, beautifully engraved, price Ss. 3Jltir|ljjI|.— 51 €XU\m m t^t 5lrt nf IBtaning. lUustrated by nearly 200 Figures, with Warj), Weft, and Yam Tables. For the use of Manufacturers. By JouN MuRPHY. Tliird edition. 1 Vol. Svo, IGs. ; or in 16 Nos. Is. each. WORKS PUBLISHED BY BLACKIE AND SON. J|l'(0nDin. (KjlB ^^rnttStUnt, a Sw-les of Essays ou the Characteristic Features, the Errors and Siiptrstitions of the Cliurcli of Koine. By Wm. JI'Gavin. 1 Vol. cloth, 18s. ^3nttfr'0 ^UtipititS nf iBXttU ; with numerous Notes, and enlarged Indices. By James Boyd, LL.D., one of the Masters of the High School, Ediiihiugh, and editor of "Adam's Roman Antiquities,'' Sec. "With a Sketcli of the Literature of Greece, by Sir D. K. Sandford ; and 150 Hlustratious. 7s. 6d. cloth. %nt — (^Xm\m m €ktk nn^l ^ntrjiniflkmg, Theoretical and Practical. By Thomas Reid, Ediuhurgh. Illustrated with 20 Folding Plates, and a Vignette Title-Page. 21s. cloth; or in 10 Parts, 2s. each. 2lB|Itthlit nf ICftttrS, a selection in Poetry and Prose, from the Works of the most Eminent Writers, with manv Original Pieces. By the Editor of the " Casquet of Literary Gems." With 25 Illustra- tions, after the most admired Artists. In 4 Vols, elegantly bound in cloth, price 28s. ; or in 24 Parts, Is. each. ••We do not known more npreeable companion than the 'Re- I "This is a judicious selection, in prose and verse."— Edinburgh j>ab\K ot Letters:"— Aberdeen Juurnal. I. Uerarij Journal ■ " Tlie Engravings are cliaste .wd ek-aant."— Brf/as£ QuanVMn. I Ejlinit. % li0tnri| nf ttlJ ^rgBtakk liUgkm; embracing the Physiology, Classi- ficatiou, and Culture of Plants ; with their various uses to Man and the Lower Animals ; and their appUcation in the Arts, Mauufactui-es, and Domestic Economy. Illustrated with 550 Engravings on Wood and Steel. Cloth, 20s. : or 9 Parts, 2s. each. ! selection of important facts, and condensing and arrang- , " An able and splendid worV." -Edinburgh Advertiser. ing his store, derived from numerous sources, the author displays "That which the author has doue, he liath performed well."— considerable talent, and a knowledge of his subject, evidently the ifetropolittn Magazine. result of deep and well-directed study."— Gardeners Gazette. I " This is ui all respects an excellent work."— ifonttJy Magazine. iR^nllilf S iHHrifUt JBistntll, with Extensive Notes, Geographical, Topographical, Historical and Critical, and a Life of tlie Author. By James Beli,, Author of "A System of Geograpliy," kc. With Numerous Illustrations. In 2 Vols. Medium 8vo, 26s. ; or in 24 Parts, Is. each. A Thied Volume on the Arts and Sciences of the Ancients, with Notes, by James Bell. Price lis. ; or in 10 Parts, Is. each. *,* This is the only complete and re-edited edition of Rollin now before the public. " The best edition that has yet issued from the press — Oriental Herald. IntiMnr^.— (Dn tjiB IlisB m^ ^kn^nm nf ICitwatiirt By sir daniel k. sanu. roKD, D.C.L., M.P., Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow. Foolscap 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. ^rntS txJ'nrtlllBB ] originaUy compiled by John Howie, of Lochgoin ; including their Testi- monies, which .arc ajjpended to each Life. Reused and corrected by James Howie, A.M. With an Historical Introduction, by the Rev. Robert Buchanan, D.D., Glasgow : with numerous Engranngs on Steel and Wood. Cuiiiplcte in 17 I'arts, Is. cacli. Mm. (C^jjristintt lUintllS ; or, a short and Plain History of the Church of Christ, con- taining an accomit of the sufferings of the Martyrs, and the Rise of the Reformation. By the Rev. Thomas Sims, M.A. 2s. clotli. linitll'0 €ma^ U tjlB CntlStrnttintt nf CnttngBS, for which the Premuun was voted by tlie Highland Society of Scotland. Illustrated by Working Plans, accompanied by Specifications, Detidls, and Estimates. Cloth, 4s. " Kverjr landlord, nnd every steward to an psfate, should get this work, and they will find it the means not only of beautifying, but also of improving their domains." — Mt'trojiolitan Mag.izlne. itnrklinttE'0 lisinrij nf tjlB ^Ml, from the Beginning of the World to the Esta- blishment of Christianity ; and a Connection of Profane with Sacred Histoiy. Also, numerous Notes, explaining Diflicult Texts, rectifying Mistranslations, and reconcihng seeming Contradictions. To which are now added, an Introduction, copious Additional Notes from recent Commentators, Critics, and Eastern Travellers, Disserta- tions, and Complete Indexes. Illustrated with 17 highly-tinished Engravings, principally after the Old Masters. 3 Vols, imperial bvo, cloth, 35s. ; or in 16 Parts, 2s. each. ^tnin. CljB ''d^tnillillg Spteni, established in the Glasgow Normal Seminai-y and its Model Schools. By David Stow, Esq., Honorary Secretary to the Glasgow Educational Society, author of " Moral Training," &c. New edition, illustrated by Plates, Plans of Schools, &c. Cloth, 6s. " It would be difficult to over-estimate the v.due and importance of this clear and comprehensive little volume."- Ca(«(ionten Mercury. Itnni.— 'lihlB €mm% fnr MM) itlinnlg nn^ '^pBk-kt( irjinnls. Willi Illustrations. By David Stow, Esq. Eighth edition, enlarged. Cloth, 2s. IBntSnU'S ^DnitJ nf ^5rnttital Dininitg, in a series of sermons on the Shorter Cate- chism of (he Westminster Assemblv- To which is appended, Select Sermons on Various Subjects, together with the Art of Divine Contentment, and Christ's Various Euhiess. The whole revised and collected, with numerous Notes from approvcil autli(;rs. 1 Vol. super-royal 8vo, cloth, IGs. ; or in 29 Nos. Gd. eacli. IBilliSnn'S ^^rnttirnl ^nrkS ; with an Essay on his Life and Times By the Rev. W. M. IlF.TliKUiNCiTON, LL.D., St. Audrcws. 1 Vol. siipcr-royal 8vo, cloth, 21s. ; or in 10 Parts, 2s. each. iBnknui.— (KjjB 1[M Jjistnrtf aiA /nte Miuti nf %xu\, asunfouedinthc Eightli and succeeding Chapters of the Book of Daniel. By the late Robert Wodeow, Esq. With iui Intro- duction by the Rev. J. G. Loiumer. Small 8vo, 3s. 6d. cloth. " A worthy work upon.a controverted subject, serious, well-read, and e»ine»t."—}l'onconformi3t. BW5440.B91V.2 The ten years' conflict; being the Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00058 1811